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

Comparison Overview

Bouygues TelecomBouygues Telecom
VS
AT&TAT&T
Bouygues Telecom

Bouygues Telecom

13/15 avenue du Maréchal Juin, Meudon-la-Forêt, 92360, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

🤝Ce qui fait notre singularité ? Chez Bouygues Telecom, nous croyons que les relations humaines sont un besoin vital. La qualité de nos relations avec notre famille, nos amis, ceux qui nous entourent est déterminante pour notre bien-être, notre santé et même notre esp...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:11,942
Subsidiaries:111
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
AT&T

AT&T

208 S. Akard Street, Dallas, 75202, US

Last Update: 25/07/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.att.com
100/1000Critical

We understand that our customers want an easier, less complicated life. We’re using our network, labs, products, services, and people to create a world where everything works together seamlessly, and life is better as a result. How will we continue to drive for thi...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:194,164
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
8
Known data breaches
27
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Bouygues Telecom

Bouygues Telecom

-
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
AT&T

AT&T

-
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 Bouygues Telecom in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

AT&T has 669.23% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Bouygues Telecom (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bouygues Telecom cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - AT&T (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AT&T 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...
Bouygues Telecom

Bouygues Telecom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BOU339080725
AT&T

AT&T

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ATTIBM1781168591
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
OKTMICATTNVI1780611852
🔒 Incident : Breach
METORATICBANYAHATTADOAPPCOLGOO1777962591

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8