Comparison Overview

Ruby

VS

T-Mobile

Ruby

555 SE Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, #105, Portland, Oregon, US, 97214
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 750 and 799

Ruby supports more than 10,000 businesses with live virtual receptionists and 24/7 chat services. But the big thing we do is a hundred little things that help owners cultivate great relationships with clients—from first impressions to lasting loyalty. We’re like the modern version of a handwritten thank you note. Something you do because it’s the right thing to do, not because you have to. We give your clients the personalized service and interactions they deserve, making meaningful connections that help your business grow and thrive. From virtual receptionists that greet callers, transfer calls, take messages, book appointments and perform intake to 24/7 live chat specialists that engage website visitors, answer FAQs and transfer leads to your team—Ruby is the dedicated teammate that makes each conversation better for you and your clients. Try Ruby risk-free. Visit www.ruby.com to get started.

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 679
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

T-Mobile

12920 SE 38th St, Bellevue, WA, US, 98006
Last Update: 2025-12-01
Between 550 and 599

T-Mobile US, Inc. (NASDAQ: TMUS) is America’s supercharged Un-carrier, delivering an advanced 4G LTE and transformative nationwide 5G network that will offer reliable connectivity for all. T-Mobile’s customers benefit from its unmatched combination of value and quality, unwavering obsession with offering them the best possible service experience and undisputable drive for disruption that creates competition and innovation in wireless and beyond. Based in Bellevue, Wash., T-Mobile provides services through its subsidiaries and operates its flagship brands, T-Mobile and Metro by T-Mobile. For more information, please visit: https://www.t-mobile.com.

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 89,361
Subsidiaries: 10
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
18
Attack type number
4

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/callruby.jpeg
Ruby
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/t-mobile.jpeg
T-Mobile
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
Ruby
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
T-Mobile
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ruby in 2025.

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

T-Mobile has 69.49% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Ruby cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — T-Mobile (X = Date, Y = Severity)

T-Mobile cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/callruby.jpeg
Ruby
Incidents

Date Detected: 05/2022
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2019
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/t-mobile.jpeg
T-Mobile
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Passive Eavesdropping, Unencrypted Satellite Transmissions, Lack of Signal Encryption
Motivation: Academic Research, Security Awareness, Vulnerability Disclosure
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Routing Infrastructure
Motivation: Espionage
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Routing Infrastructure
Motivation: Surveillance, Espionage
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Ruby company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to T-Mobile company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

T-Mobile company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Ruby company.

In the current year, T-Mobile company has reported more cyber incidents than Ruby company.

Neither T-Mobile company nor Ruby company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

T-Mobile company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Ruby company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both T-Mobile company and Ruby company have reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks.

T-Mobile company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Ruby company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Ruby nor T-Mobile holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

T-Mobile company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ruby company.

T-Mobile company employs more people globally than Ruby company, reflecting its scale as a Telecommunications.

Neither Ruby nor T-Mobile holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Ruby nor T-Mobile holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Ruby nor T-Mobile holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Ruby nor T-Mobile holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Ruby nor T-Mobile holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Ruby nor T-Mobile holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

MCP Server Kubernetes is an MCP Server that can connect to a Kubernetes cluster and manage it. Prior to 2.9.8, there is a security issue exists in the exec_in_pod tool of the mcp-server-kubernetes MCP Server. The tool accepts user-provided commands in both array and string formats. When a string format is provided, it is passed directly to shell interpretation (sh -c) without input validation, allowing shell metacharacters to be interpreted. This vulnerability can be exploited through direct command injection or indirect prompt injection attacks, where AI agents may execute commands without explicit user intent. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.9.8.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.4
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

XML external entity (XXE) injection in eyoucms v1.7.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via crafted body of a POST request.

Description

An issue was discovered in Fanvil x210 V2 2.12.20 allowing unauthenticated attackers on the local network to access administrative functions of the device (e.g. file upload, firmware update, reboot...) via a crafted authentication bypass.

Description

Cal.com is open-source scheduling software. Prior to 5.9.8, A flaw in the login credentials provider allows an attacker to bypass password verification when a TOTP code is provided, potentially gaining unauthorized access to user accounts. This issue exists due to problematic conditional logic in the authentication flow. This vulnerability is fixed in 5.9.8.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 9.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
Description

Rhino is an open-source implementation of JavaScript written entirely in Java. Prior to 1.8.1, 1.7.15.1, and 1.7.14.1, when an application passed an attacker controlled float poing number into the toFixed() function, it might lead to high CPU consumption and a potential Denial of Service. Small numbers go through this call stack: NativeNumber.numTo > DToA.JS_dtostr > DToA.JS_dtoa > DToA.pow5mult where pow5mult attempts to raise 5 to a ridiculous power. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.8.1, 1.7.15.1, and 1.7.14.1.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 5.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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