Comparison Overview

Bell

VS

Cox Communications

Bell

1 carrefour Alexandre-Graham-Bell, Montreal, Quebec, CA, H3E 3B3
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 750 and 799

We advance how people connect with each other and the world #ConnectionIsEverything. Bell is Canada's largest communications company providing advanced Bell broadband wireless, Internet, TV, media and business communications services. Founded in Montréal in 1880, Bell is wholly owned by BCE Inc. To learn more, please visit Bell.ca or BCE.ca Through Bell for Better, we are investing to create a better today and a better tomorrow by supporting the social and economic prosperity of our communities. This includes the Bell Let's Talk initiative, which promotes Canadian mental health with national awareness and anti-stigma campaigns like Bell Let's Talk Day and significant Bell funding of community care and access, research and workplace initiatives throughout the country. To learn more, please visit Bell.ca/LetsTalk

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 33,541
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Cox Communications

6205 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, None, Atlanta, GA, US, 30328
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Cox Communications is committed to creating more moments of real human connection. We bring people closer to family and friends through technology that’s inspired by a culture that puts people first, and we’re always working to improve life in the communities we serve. Our world-class broadband applications and services are helping create smart homes and smart cities that will bring more comfort, convenience, security, entertainment and connectivity to the lives of the people we serve. Our company is full of dreamers and doers; people who make plans and who make things happen. And, of course, people who have fun doing it. In short, people like you. Join the Cox team and make your mark!

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 16,385
Subsidiaries: 25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
4

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bell.jpeg
Bell
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-communications.jpeg
Cox Communications
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Bell
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Cox Communications
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bell in 2025.

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Communications in 2025.

Incident History — Bell (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bell cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Cox Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bell.jpeg
Bell
Incidents

Date Detected: 01/2018
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2017
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-communications.jpeg
Cox Communications
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Zero-Day Exploit (CVE-2025-61882), Unauthenticated Access, Multi-Stage Java Implants, Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Internal (Insider)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Automated Collection Methods
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Bell company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cox Communications company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cox Communications company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Bell company.

In the current year, Cox Communications company has reported more cyber incidents than Bell company.

Cox Communications company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Bell company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Cox Communications company and Bell company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Cox Communications company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Bell company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Bell company nor Cox Communications company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Bell nor Cox Communications holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cox Communications company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Bell company.

Bell company employs more people globally than Cox Communications company, reflecting its scale as a Telecommunications.

Neither Bell nor Cox Communications holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Bell nor Cox Communications holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Bell nor Cox Communications holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Bell nor Cox Communications holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Bell nor Cox Communications holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Bell nor Cox Communications holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H