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

Comparison Overview

CERTICALLCERTICALL
VS
Tata CommunicationsTata Communications
CERTICALL

CERTICALL

40, avenue Jules Cantini, Marseille, 13006, FR

Last Update: 20/02/2026

View Profile
823/1000Good

Filiale du groupe Iliad, acteur incontournable des télécommunications, via ses marques Free, Alice et Free mobile, Certicall emploie près de 520 collaborateurs au sein de son centre d'appels situé au cœur de Marseille, à proximité de la place Castellane. Constitué de 3 ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:156
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tata Communications

Tata Communications

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai, 400070, IN

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
768/1000Fair

Tata Communications is a digital ecosystem enabler that powers today’s fast-growing digital economy. We enable the digital transformation of enterprises globally, including 300 of the Fortune 500. We carry around 30% of the world’s internet routes and connects businesse...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:16,856
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CERTICALL

CERTICALL

-
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
Tata Communications

Tata Communications

-
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 CERTICALL in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata Communications in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - CERTICALL (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CERTICALL cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Tata Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Communications 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...
CERTICALL

CERTICALL

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Communications

Tata Communications

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2