Comparison Overview

Cox Communications

VS

T-Mobile

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

T-Mobile

12920 SE 38th St, Bellevue, WA, US, 98006
Last Update: 2025-11-20
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/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/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
Cox Communications
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 Cox Communications 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 — Cox Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Cox Communications 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/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/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

Cox Communications 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 Cox Communications company.

In the current year, T-Mobile and Cox Communications have reported a similar number of cyber incidents.

Cox Communications company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while T-Mobile company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both T-Mobile company and Cox Communications company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

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

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

Neither Cox Communications nor T-Mobile holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Cox Communications company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to T-Mobile company.

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

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

Neither Cox Communications nor T-Mobile holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Cox Communications nor T-Mobile holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Cox Communications nor T-Mobile holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Cox Communications nor T-Mobile holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Cox Communications nor T-Mobile 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