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

Comparison Overview

ETSIETSI
VS
Cox CommunicationsCox Communications
ETSI

ETSI

650 Route des Lucioles, Sophia Antipolis Cedex - VALBONNE - France, 06921, FR

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.etsi.org
721/1000Moderate

ETSI provides platforms where interested parties come together & collaborate on the development & promotion of standards for Information & Communication Technology (ICT) systems and services, used globally for the benefit of all. ETSI provides members with an open and ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:448
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Cox Communications

Cox Communications

6205 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, 30328, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cox.com
754/1000Fair

Cox Communications is committed to creating more moments of real human connection. We bring people closer to family and friends through technology that’s inspired by a culture that puts people first, and we’re always working to improve life in the communities we serve. ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:16,319
Subsidiaries:23
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ETSI

ETSI

-
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
Cox Communications

Cox 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 ETSI in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Communications in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - ETSI (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ETSI cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Cox 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...
ETSI

ETSI

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
ETS1122181023
Cox Communications

Cox Communications

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
COX2035161122
🔒 Incident : Breach
COX152930322

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-113705
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in a2aproject a2a-rs up to 0.4.3. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file a2a-server/src/error.rs. Executing a manipulation can lead to information exposure through error message. The attack can be executed remotely. This patch is called 713b943af94ab2d521d483b841618b97a2e78a4d. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-9825
SUMMARY

IBM Cyber Fraud 1.0.0 through 1.0.2 has a missing secure attribute allowing sensitive cookies to be transmitted over unencrypted connections, potentially enabling an attacker to intercept session data through network-based attacks.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-94402
SUMMARY

IBM Carbon Charts 0.4.0 through 1.27.19 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. The MeterChart component's Title.truncateTitle() function re-inserts a substring of user-supplied label text into the DOM via an unsanitized innerHTML write when the title exceeds the available container width. A remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser session.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-93888
SUMMARY

IBM Sterling Connect Direct for Unix 6.4.0.0 through 6.4.0.6 and 6.3.0.0 through 6.3.0.7 apnotify utility is vulnerable to a code injection due to insufficient validation of user input.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-93744
SUMMARY

IBM i 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, and 7.6 could allow an unathenticated remote attacker to bypass security restrictions due to improper access control. By sending a specially crafted HTTP request to any URL within the Navigator application prior to authentication, a bad actor could exploit this vulnerability to alter server-side session security state.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-20
UPDATED
Date2026-10-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9