Comparison Overview

BT Group

VS

ZTE Corporation

BT Group

One Braham, London, undefined, E1 8EE, GB
Last Update: 2025-11-23
Between 700 and 749

We’re one of the world’s leading communications services companies. At BT Group, the solutions we sell are integral to modern life. Our purpose is as simple as it is ambitious: we connect for good. There are no limits to what people can do when they connect. And as technology changes our world, connections are becoming even more important to everyday life. Today, that’s truer than ever. The connections we make are helping solve the world’s biggest challenges such as the global pandemic, climate change and cyber security. Through the power of technology, we’re supporting customers to live, work and play together better.

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 75,585
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
2

ZTE Corporation

ZTE Corporation Hi-Tech Road South, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, CN, 518057
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

ZTE connects the world with continuous innovation for a better future. The company provides innovative technologies and integrated solutions, and its portfolio spans communication networks, computing infrastructure, industry digital solutions, and personal and home smart terminals. Serving one third of the world's population, ZTE is dedicated to leading globally in connectivity and intelligent computing, enabling communication and trust everywhere. ZTE is listed on both the Hong Kong and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges. For enquiry about our mobile devices, please contact us via [email protected] For network services, please contact our 24/7 support hotline: 0086-755-26771900 or email: [email protected] https://twitter.com/ZTEPress https://www.facebook.com/ZTECorp https://youtube.com/@ZTECorporation

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 30,451
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bt.jpeg
BT Group
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/zte.jpeg
ZTE Corporation
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
BT Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
ZTE Corporation
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for BT Group in 2025.

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ZTE Corporation in 2025.

Incident History — BT Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

BT Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — ZTE Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ZTE Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/bt.jpeg
BT Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2018
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Exposed Default Password
Motivation: Unintentional Exposure
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/zte.jpeg
ZTE Corporation
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

ZTE Corporation company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to BT Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

BT Group company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas ZTE Corporation company has not reported any.

In the current year, ZTE Corporation company and BT Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

BT Group company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while ZTE Corporation company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither ZTE Corporation company nor BT Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither ZTE Corporation company nor BT Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither BT Group company nor ZTE Corporation company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither BT Group nor ZTE Corporation holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

BT Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to ZTE Corporation company.

BT Group company employs more people globally than ZTE Corporation company, reflecting its scale as a Telecommunications.

Neither BT Group nor ZTE Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither BT Group nor ZTE Corporation holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither BT Group nor ZTE Corporation holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither BT Group nor ZTE Corporation holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither BT Group nor ZTE Corporation holds HIPAA certification.

Neither BT Group nor ZTE Corporation 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