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

Comparison Overview

China Telecom Corporation LimitedChina Telecom Corporation Limited
VS
VodafoneVodafone
China Telecom Corporation Limited

China Telecom Corporation Limited

No. 31 Jinrong Avenue Xicheng District BEIJING, BEJ 100032, CN

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
749/1000Moderate

China Telecom is a telecommunications company based out of BEIJING. China Telecom representatives, don’t miss out on opportunities to build relationships with members on LinkedIn. Claim your page, write a simple description, and share content to attract followers that c...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:1
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Vodafone

Vodafone

1 Kingdom Street, Paddington Central, London, GB, W2 6BY

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.vodafone.com/
684/1000Weak

At Vodafone, we believe that connectivity is a force for good. If we use it for the things that really matter, it can improve people's lives and the world around us. Through our technology we empower people, connecting everyone regardless of who they are or where they...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:146,370
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
China Telecom Corporation Limited

China Telecom Corporation Limited

-
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
Vodafone

Vodafone

-
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 China Telecom Corporation Limited in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vodafone in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - China Telecom Corporation Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China Telecom Corporation Limited 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 - Vodafone (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Vodafone 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...
China Telecom Corporation Limited

China Telecom Corporation Limited

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Vodafone

Vodafone

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
VOD93129723
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
VOD41441223
🔒 Incident : Breach
VOD202921222

FAQ

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