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

Comparison Overview

DNA CommunicationsDNA Communications
VS
Tata CommunicationsTata Communications
DNA Communications

DNA Communications

601 First Ave, Rochelle, IL, US, 61068

Last Update: 29/06/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.dnacom.com
685/1000Weak

We’re going on 21 great years of service, dedicated to serving North-Central Illinois rural communities, with the highest quality Digital Telecommunication Services, Fiber Optics, DSL, ADSL, VDSL, SIP Trunking, without the high costs. Our Headquarters is in Rochelle Ill...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:22
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Tata Communications

Tata Communications

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai, 400070, IN

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
771/1000Fair

Tata Communications is a digital ecosystem enabler that powers today’s fast-growing digital economy. We enable the digital transformation of enterprises globally, including 300 of the Fortune 500. We carry around 30% of the world’s internet routes and connects businesse...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:16,856
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
DNA Communications

DNA 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
Tata Communications

Tata 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

DNA Communications has 45.95% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata Communications in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

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

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

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
DNA Communications

DNA Communications

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
DNA1782752605
Tata Communications

Tata Communications

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/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
1.8
CVE-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
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: 5.3
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: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
2.8