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

Comparison Overview

AI Shared ServicesAI Shared Services
VS
EricssonEricsson
AI Shared Services

AI Shared Services

Innere Kanalstraße 98, Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, 50672, DE

Last Update: 07/03/2026

View Profile

We are AI SHARED SERVICES. A team of motivated people in DTSE accelerating and scaling the use of Artificial Intelligence in the LEADING DIGITAL TELCO. DTSE's AI Incubator defies the belief that AI solutions demand extensive resources. Established in 2019, it successfu...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:14
Subsidiaries:67
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ericsson

Ericsson

Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, Stockholm, SE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.ericsson.com
568/1000Very Poor

The future of mobile isn’t on the horizon, it’s happening now. At Ericsson, we’re building the foundation for an open network ecosystem where industries, developers, and enterprises thrive. The convergence of 5G, AI, cloud, and network APIs isn’t just a technological s...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:107,243
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
AI Shared Services

AI Shared Services

-
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
Ericsson

Ericsson

-
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 AI Shared Services in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Ericsson has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - AI Shared Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AI Shared Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Ericsson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ericsson 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...
AI Shared Services

AI Shared Services

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ericsson

Ericsson

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ERI1773189089
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ERIDEFJOHROLVID1772180734
🔒 Incident : Breach
JOHROLERI1772202424

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
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