Comparison Overview

Cox Communications

VS

Ooredoo Group

Cox Communications

6205 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, None, Atlanta, GA, US, 30328
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

Cox Communications is committed to creating more moments of real human connection. We bring people closer to family and friends through technology that’s inspired by a culture that puts people first, and we’re always working to improve life in the communities we serve. Our world-class broadband applications and services are helping create smart homes and smart cities that will bring more comfort, convenience, security, entertainment and connectivity to the lives of the people we serve. Our company is full of dreamers and doers; people who make plans and who make things happen. And, of course, people who have fun doing it. In short, people like you. Join the Cox team and make your mark!

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 16,385
Subsidiaries: 25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
4

Ooredoo Group

100 West Bay, Doha, Doha, Po Box 217, QA
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 750 and 799

We are an award-winning international communications company operating across the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Asia. Serving consumers and businesses in 10 countries, we deliver a leading data experience through a broad range of content and services via our advanced, data-centric mobile and fixed networks. With a customer base of more than 138 million people, we work hard to provide the best customer and network experience we can. We believe in the power of mobile technology to bring about social and economic progress.

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 29,362
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-communications.jpeg
Cox Communications
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/ooredoo-group.jpeg
Ooredoo 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
Compliance Summary
Cox Communications
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ooredoo Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Communications in 2025.

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ooredoo Group in 2025.

Incident History — Cox Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Ooredoo Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cox-communications.jpeg
Cox Communications
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Zero-Day Exploit (CVE-2025-61882), Unauthenticated Access, Multi-Stage Java Implants, Data Exfiltration
Motivation: Financial Gain, Data Theft, Extortion
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 9/2024
Type:Ransomware
Attack Vector: Internal (Insider)
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2023
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Automated Collection Methods
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ooredoo-group.jpeg
Ooredoo Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Ooredoo Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Cox Communications company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Cox Communications company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Ooredoo Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Cox Communications company has reported more cyber incidents than Ooredoo Group company.

Cox Communications company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Ooredoo Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cox Communications company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Ooredoo Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Cox Communications company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Ooredoo Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Cox Communications company nor Ooredoo Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Cox Communications nor Ooredoo Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cox Communications company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Ooredoo Group company.

Ooredoo Group company employs more people globally than Cox Communications company, reflecting its scale as a Telecommunications.

Neither Cox Communications nor Ooredoo Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Cox Communications nor Ooredoo Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Cox Communications nor Ooredoo Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Cox Communications nor Ooredoo Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Cox Communications nor Ooredoo Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Cox Communications nor Ooredoo Group 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