Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlusCrocker Communications - Now AccessPlus
VS
ZTE CorporationZTE Corporation
Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus

Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus

101 Munson Street, Greenfield, 01301, US

Last Update: 16/07/2026

View Profile
735/1000Moderate

Crocker Communications has now joined AccessPlus! As a trusted provider in the Western Massachusetts area for 20+ years, our connectivity and voice solutions reliably connects communities across the northeast region. AccessPlus is continually expanding our fiber servic...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:59
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
ZTE Corporation

ZTE Corporation

ZTE Corporation Hi-Tech Road South, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, CN, 518057

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.zte.com.cn/global
797/1000Fair

ZTE connects the world with continuous innovation for a better future. The company provides innovative technologies and integrated solutions, and its portfolio spans communication networks, computing infrastructure, industry digital solutions, and personal and home sm...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:30,970
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus

Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
ZTE Corporation

ZTE Corporation

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus has 47.09% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ZTE Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - ZTE Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ZTE Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus

Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ACC1784190733
ZTE Corporation

ZTE Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus company and ZTE Corporation company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus and ZTE Corporation, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus and ZTE Corporation, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus or ZTE Corporation ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus or ZTE Corporation ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus and ZTE Corporation, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Crocker Communications - Now AccessPlus and ZTE Corporation, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8