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

Comparison Overview

Cox CommunicationsCox Communications
VS
Deutsche TelekomDeutsche Telekom
Cox Communications

Cox Communications

6205 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, 30328, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cox.com
754/1000Fair

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. ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:16,319
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Telekom

Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 140, Bonn, Germany, DE, 53113

Last Update: 15/05/2026

View Profile
798/1000Fair

Welcome to Deutsche Telekom. As one of the world's most valuable brands, we design innovative solutions and products in the areas of connectivity, networks, digitalization and security. #connectingyourworld At Deutsche Telekom, we believe that each and every one of us...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:66,526
Subsidiaries:59
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cox Communications

Cox 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
Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Telekom

-
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 Cox Communications in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Deutsche Telekom has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Cox Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Deutsche Telekom (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Deutsche Telekom 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...
Cox Communications

Cox Communications

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
COX2035161122
🔒 Incident : Breach
COX152930322
Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Telekom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOV1776717678

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12814
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in Comfast CF-WR631AX V3 up to 2.7.0.8. This issue affects the function system of the file /cgi-bin/mbox-config?section=ping_config of the component API Endpoint. This manipulation of the argument destination causes os command injection. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-12813
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in activepieces up to 0.83.0. This vulnerability affects the function handleUrlFile in the library packages/server/engine/src/lib/variables/processors/file.ts of the component File URL Handler. The manipulation results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-12812
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Radware Cyber Controller up to 10.11.0. This affects an unknown part of the component HTML Report Generation. The manipulation leads to HTML injection. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
2.1
CVE-2026-12811
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in kortix-ai suna up to 0.8.38. Affected by this issue is the function router.replace/router.push of the file apps/frontend/src/app/auth/page.tsx of the component Auth Endpoint. Executing a manipulation of the argument returnURL can lead to cross site scripting. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 0.8.39 can resolve this issue. This patch is called f5dec7aa0c1b8fa0125938f292c0f2430ca75f6c. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The researcher explains: "The issue was fixed in v0.8.39 without notifying the wider user base via a security disclosure."

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
2.8
CVE-2026-12810
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Edimax BR-6478AC V2 1.23. Affected by this vulnerability is the function mp of the file /goform/mp of the component POST Request Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument command results in command injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-21
UPDATED
Date2026-06-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8