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
PTCL.OfficialPTCL.Official
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
PTCL.Official

PTCL.Official

Block-E, Sector G-8/4, Islamabad, 44000, PK

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.ptcl.com.pk
793/1000Fair

𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻: To be the leading and most admired Telecom and ICT provider in and for Pakistan. 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧: To be the partner of choice for our customers, to develop our people and to deliver value to our shareholders. 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀: Be resilie...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:22,945
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
PTCL.Official

PTCL.Official

-
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)

No incidents recorded for PTCL.Official in 2026.

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 - PTCL.Official (X = Date, Y = Severity)

PTCL.Official 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...
Bouygues Telecom

Bouygues Telecom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BOU339080725
PTCL.Official

PTCL.Official

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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