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

Comparison Overview

Deutsche Telekom IoTDeutsche Telekom IoT
VS
Infosys BPMInfosys BPM
Deutsche Telekom IoT

Deutsche Telekom IoT

Landgrabenweg 149, Bonn, 53227, DE

Last Update: 21/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://iot.telekom.com
753/1000Fair

Deutsche Telekom IoT (DT IoT) is the global IoT Connector. Leveraging our leading transatlantic network, we provide platform-based, flexible connectivity solutions that simplify complex IoT deployments for businesses worldwide. With a seamless global footprint, our serv...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:262
Subsidiaries:64
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Infosys BPM

Infosys BPM

Infosys BPM Limited, Plot no 26/3, 26/4, 26/6, Hosur Road, Electronics City, Bengaluru, 560100, IN

Last Update: 09/09/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.infosysbpm.com
814/1000Good

Infosys BPM Ltd., the business process management subsidiary of Infosys Ltd. (NYSE: INFY), was set up in April 2002. Infosys BPM focuses on integrated end-to-end outsourcing and delivers transformational benefits to its clients through reduced costs, ongoing productivit...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:43,598
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Deutsche Telekom IoT

Deutsche Telekom IoT

-
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
Infosys BPM

Infosys BPM

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Deutsche Telekom IoT in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Infosys BPM in 2026.

Incidents

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

Deutsche Telekom IoT cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Infosys BPM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Infosys BPM 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...
Deutsche Telekom IoT

Deutsche Telekom IoT

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Infosys BPM

Infosys BPM

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-97626
SUMMARY

Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-97208
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-96594
SUMMARY

The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-89182
SUMMARY

With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-86684
SUMMARY

The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-06
UPDATED
Date2026-10-06
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA