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

Comparison Overview

Etisalat AfghanistanEtisalat Afghanistan
VS
A1 Telekom Austria GroupA1 Telekom Austria Group
Etisalat Afghanistan

Etisalat Afghanistan

Charahi Shahid, Ehsan Plaza, Kabul, undefined, 25000, AF

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.etisalat.af/en/
758/1000Fair

Etisalat Afghanistan is 100% owned subsidiary of Etisalat UAE. Etisalat is one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world and the leading operator in the Middle East and Africa, headquartered in the UAE. Etisalat operates in 18 countries across Asia, the M...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:1,117
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
A1 Telekom Austria Group

A1 Telekom Austria Group

Lassallestrasse 9, Vienna, Vienna, AT, 1020

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.a1.group/
762/1000Fair

WE ARE EMPOWERING DIGITAL LIFE We don't know what the world will look like in 2050, but we know that A1 Telekom Austria Group is geared up for current and future demands. We are a leading provider of digital services and communications solutions in Central and Eastern...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:12,126
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Etisalat Afghanistan

Etisalat Afghanistan

-
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
A1 Telekom Austria Group

A1 Telekom Austria Group

-
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 Etisalat Afghanistan in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A1 Telekom Austria Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Etisalat Afghanistan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Etisalat Afghanistan 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 - A1 Telekom Austria Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A1 Telekom Austria Group 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...
Etisalat Afghanistan

Etisalat Afghanistan

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
A1 Telekom Austria Group

A1 Telekom Austria Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
A1T2156311222

FAQ

Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Etisalat Afghanistan or A1 Telekom Austria Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Etisalat Afghanistan or A1 Telekom Austria Group ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Etisalat Afghanistan and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/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
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8