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

Comparison Overview

EchoStar CorporationEchoStar Corporation
VS
Rogers CommunicationsRogers Communications
EchoStar Corporation

EchoStar Corporation

9601 S Meridian Blvd, Englewood, 80112, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.echostar.com/
805/1000Good

EchoStar Corporation (Nasdaq: SATS) is a premier provider of technology, networking services, television entertainment and connectivity, offering consumer, enterprise, operator and government solutions worldwide under its EchoStar®, Boost Mobile®, Sling TV, DISH TV, Hug...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:28,281
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

333 Bloor Street East, Toronto, M4W 1G9, CA

Last Update: 29/07/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.rogers.com
493/1000Critical

Rogers is Canada’s communications and entertainment company, driven to connect and entertain Canadians. For more information, please visit rogers.com  or  investors.rogers.com. Déterminée à connecter et à divertir les Canadiens et Canadiennes, Rogers est la référence ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:28,354
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
EchoStar Corporation

EchoStar Corporation

-
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
Rogers Communications

Rogers 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)

No incidents recorded for EchoStar Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Rogers Communications has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - EchoStar Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EchoStar Corporation 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 - Rogers Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rogers Communications 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...
EchoStar Corporation

EchoStar Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROGFID1774708017
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ROGCYBTES1770724900
🔒 Incident : Breach
FIDLOBROGARDTEL1785321269

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
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-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
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-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
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-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2