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

Comparison Overview

Crown Castle FiberCrown Castle Fiber
VS
Bouygues TelecomBouygues Telecom
Crown Castle Fiber

Crown Castle Fiber

N/A

Last Update: 08/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.crowncastle.com/
783/1000Fair

Crown Castle Fiber is now Crown Castle. Since 1994, Crown Castle has worked around the country to build and maintain the infrastructure behind the world’s most revolutionary technologies. This comprehensive portfolio of towers, small cells and fiber gives people and com...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:1
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Bouygues Telecom

Bouygues Telecom

13/15 avenue du Maréchal Juin, Meudon-la-Forêt, 92360, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

🤝Ce qui fait notre singularité ? Chez Bouygues Telecom, nous croyons que les relations humaines sont un besoin vital. La qualité de nos relations avec notre famille, nos amis, ceux qui nous entourent est déterminante pour notre bien-être, notre santé et même notre esp...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:11,942
Subsidiaries:111
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Crown Castle Fiber

Crown Castle Fiber

-
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
Bouygues Telecom

Bouygues Telecom

-
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 Crown Castle Fiber in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Bouygues Telecom in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Crown Castle Fiber (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Crown Castle Fiber 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 - Bouygues Telecom (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Bouygues Telecom 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...
Crown Castle Fiber

Crown Castle Fiber

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Bouygues Telecom

Bouygues Telecom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
BOU339080725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
1.8