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

Comparison Overview

Airtel UgandaAirtel Uganda
VS
A1 Telekom Austria GroupA1 Telekom Austria Group
Airtel Uganda

Airtel Uganda

Plot 16A, Clement Hill, Kampala, Kampala, Kampala, UG, 00256

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.airtel.co.ug/
755/1000Fair

The Airtel experience in Uganda started in 2010, giving Ugandans an unbeatable telecom experience. Today, Airtel Uganda is the fastest growing and innovative telecom in Uganda with over 14 million subscribers. At Airtel, we stand for winning partnerships, growth and qu...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:1,911
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
A1 Telekom Austria Group

A1 Telekom Austria Group

Lassallestrasse 9, Vienna, Vienna, AT, 1020

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.a1.group/
762/1000Fair

WE ARE EMPOWERING DIGITAL LIFE We don't know what the world will look like in 2050, but we know that A1 Telekom Austria Group is geared up for current and future demands. We are a leading provider of digital services and communications solutions in Central and Eastern...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:12,126
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Airtel Uganda

Airtel Uganda

-
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
A1 Telekom Austria Group

A1 Telekom Austria Group

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Airtel Uganda in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A1 Telekom Austria Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Airtel Uganda (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Airtel Uganda cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - A1 Telekom Austria Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A1 Telekom Austria Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Airtel Uganda

Airtel Uganda

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AIR131121222
A1 Telekom Austria Group

A1 Telekom Austria Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
A1T2156311222

FAQ

Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Airtel Uganda company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Airtel Uganda and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Airtel Uganda and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Airtel Uganda or A1 Telekom Austria Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Airtel Uganda or A1 Telekom Austria Group ?
Between Airtel Uganda and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Airtel Uganda and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1