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

Comparison Overview

Corning Optical CommunicationsCorning Optical Communications
VS
Telkom IndonesiaTelkom Indonesia
Corning Optical Communications

Corning Optical Communications

4200 Corning Pl, Charlotte, NC, 28216, US

Last Update: 18/03/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

Corning Optical Communications is a leading manufacturer of fiber optic communications system solutions for voice, data and video network applications worldwide.

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:28
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Telkom Indonesia

Telkom Indonesia

Jalan Jenderal Gatot Subroto Kav. 52, Jakarta Selatan, 40264, ID

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.telkom.co.id
789/1000Fair

PT Telkom Indonesia (Persero) Tbk (Telkom) is a state-owned information and communications technology enterprise and telecommunications network in Indonesia. The Government of Indonesia is the majority shareholder with 52.09 percent shares while the remaining 47.91 perc...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:21,734
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Corning Optical Communications

Corning Optical 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
Telkom Indonesia

Telkom Indonesia

-
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 Corning Optical Communications in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Telkom Indonesia in 2026.

Incidents

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

Corning Optical Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Telkom Indonesia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Telkom Indonesia 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...
Corning Optical Communications

Corning Optical Communications

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Telkom Indonesia

Telkom Indonesia

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9