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
AT&TAT&T
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
AT&T

AT&T

208 S. Akard Street, Dallas, 75202, US

Last Update: 08/06/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.att.com
100/1000Critical

We understand that our customers want an easier, less complicated life. We’re using our network, labs, products, services, and people to create a world where everything works together seamlessly, and life is better as a result. How will we continue to drive for thi...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:178,894
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
6
Known data breaches
26
Attack type number
3

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
AT&T

AT&T

-
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)

AT&T has 455.56% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 - AT&T (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AT&T 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.
AT&T

AT&T

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
OKTMICATTNVI1780611852
🔒 Incident : Breach
METORATICBANYAHATTADOAPPCOLGOO1777962591
🔒 Incident : Breach
LUMATTVERFBIWINFIN1772764213

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44541
SUMMARY

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. From version 2.33.0 to before version 2.84.5, there is a DOM-based XSS vulnerability in fides.js via the fides_description override. This issue has been patched in version 2.84.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49141
SUMMARY

WACRM prior to commit 73041bf contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the automation engine that allows authenticated attackers to access and modify contacts belonging to other tenants by supplying an arbitrary caller-controlled contact_id in the POST request body without tenant ownership verification. Attackers can exploit the service-role client that bypasses row-level security to modify victim contact fields including name, email, and company across tenant boundaries using only a known contact UUID.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47345
SUMMARY

Namespace attributes are not encoded correctly during HTML serialization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47344
SUMMARY

When ALLOW_INSECURE_RAW_TEXT is enabled, whitespace-variant closing tags (e.g., </style\t>) are not recognized by the sanitizer but accepted by browsers as valid end tags, allowing subsequent content to escape sanitization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-46484
SUMMARY

Headplane is a feature-complete Web UI for Headscale. Prior to versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3, Headplane was vulnerable to a path traversal / authorization bypass in the Headscale API client used by node and user rename operations. This issue has been patched in versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8