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
TeliaTelia
Etisalat Afghanistan

Etisalat Afghanistan

Charahi Shahid, Ehsan Plaza, Kabul, 25000, AF

Last Update: 01/04/2026

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

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

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:1,244
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Telia

Telia

Stjärntorget 1, SOLNA, SE-169 94, SE

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.teliacompany.com
748/1000Moderate

Our 15 000 talented colleagues serve millions of customers every day in one of the world’s most connected regions. With a strong connectivity base, we’re the hub in the digital ecosystem, empowering people, companies and societies to stay in touch with everything that m...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:17,559
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
1
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
Telia

Telia

-
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)

Telia has 1.96% fewer 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 - Telia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Telia 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.
Telia

Telia

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TEL1772628030

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94426
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in xuxueli xxl-job up to 3.5.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /jobgroup/insert. This manipulation of the argument Name causes cross site scripting. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-94425
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Moore Threads MTT S80 Driver Package 340.150. The affected element is the function sub_140006F0C in the library mtdispkm64.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. The manipulation results in improper privilege management. Attacking locally is a requirement. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2
CVE-2026-94627
SUMMARY

vLLM Mooncake connector through 0.29.0 fails to properly manage GPU KV cache block ownership when concurrent child requests share a single transfer ID in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments. Attackers can trigger GPU memory exhaustion by submitting completion requests with multiple prompts, causing orphaned KV cache blocks to accumulate until process restart and eventually preventing legitimate requests from executing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-94626
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 fails to validate the tp_size parameter in kv_transfer_params on OpenAI-compatible completion endpoints, allowing attackers to allocate unbounded memory. Attackers can supply arbitrary tp_size values in prefill/decode disaggregated deployments to exhaust memory and trigger kernel OOM-kill of the decode worker process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-94625
SUMMARY

vLLM through 0.29.0 contains a resource exhaustion vulnerability in MooncakeConnector where rejected prefill requests create ownerless transfer placeholders that are never reclaimed. Attackers can send rejected requests to exhaust sender task pools, causing valid requests to be delayed by up to 480 seconds while health checks continue returning success.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-21
UPDATED
Date2026-09-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
3.9