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

Comparison Overview

Gamma GroupGamma Group
VS
Cox CommunicationsCox Communications
Gamma Group

Gamma Group

Office 303, 4, Red Prospectus, Novosibirsk, 630007, RU

Last Update: 26/07/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.gamma-group.info
739/1000Moderate

Telecommunication Company

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:3
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
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
Gamma Group

Gamma 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
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)

Gamma Group has 47.09% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Cox Communications in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Gamma Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gamma Group 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...
Gamma Group

Gamma Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAM1785025466
Cox Communications

Cox Communications

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-18577
SUMMARY

An incomplete patch for CVE-2026-18556 allows for authentication bypass and account takeover in N-central Versions through 2026.3.1

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/E:A/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-2026-10848
SUMMARY

The OCPP 1.6 client in subsys/net/lib/ocpp parsed inbound WAMP RPC frames in parse_rpc_msg() (subsys/net/lib/ocpp/ocpp_j.c) using a hand-rolled helper, extract_string_field(), that copied the message's uid and action fields with strncpy(out_buf, token + 1, outlen - 1) and then scanned the result with strchr(out_buf, '"'). Because strncpy does not NUL-terminate the destination when the source is at least outlen - 1 (127) bytes long, the subsequent strchr reads past the 128-byte destination buffer into adjacent stack memory; if a " byte is found beyond the buffer, a one-byte out-of-bounds NUL write also occurs. A related defect in extract_payload() runs strchr/strrchr over the receive buffer, which may not be NUL-terminated when a maximal-length frame fills it. The parsed bytes come directly from the OCPP central-system server over a websocket: the reader thread fills recv_buf via websocket_recv_msg() and calls parse_rpc_msg() on each inbound DATA frame (subsys/net/lib/ocpp/ocpp.c). A malicious or compromised central server, or an on-path attacker (OCPP is commonly deployed over plain ws://), can send an RPC frame whose uid or action field is 127+ bytes with no closing quote, triggering the out-of-bounds access. The primary impact is a remotely triggerable denial of service: the unbounded scan can fault on an unmapped page, and the stray NUL write can corrupt adjacent stack state. The over-read data is not reflected to the peer, so disclosure is limited. The feature is EXPERIMENTAL and must be explicitly enabled (CONFIG_OCPP). The fix replaces the manual parser with the bounds-respecting json_mixed_arr_parse() and copies the extracted uid with an explicitly NUL-terminated buffer, eliminating both over-reads.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.0
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-9856
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in huggingface/transformers versions <=5.8.0.dev0 allows an attacker to perform arbitrary file writes via path traversal. The issue resides in the `save_pretrained()` methods of `PreTrainedTokenizerBase` and `ProcessorMixin`, where keys from the `chat_template` dictionary are used directly as filenames without proper validation. An attacker can exploit this by publishing a malicious Hugging Face Hub repository with a crafted `tokenizer_config.json` file. When a victim downloads and saves the tokenizer or processor, the attacker-controlled keys can escape the intended save directory, enabling arbitrary file writes with attacker-controlled content. This vulnerability affects multiple processors inheriting from `ProcessorMixin`, including Idefics, Florence, Gemma, Phi, and Qwen-VL.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-65321
SUMMARY

PyAthena prior to 3.35.4 contains a sql injection vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary SQL by exploiting improper quote-escaping in DefaultParameterFormatter.format(), which routes DELETE and CTAS statements to the _escape_hive function that backslash-escapes single quotes rather than doubling them. Because Athena and Trino do not treat backslashes as escape characters inside string literals, attacker-supplied input such as a single quote followed by SQL syntax causes the parser to terminate the string literal prematurely, enabling data exfiltration via UNION SELECT, execution of destructive statements, and attacker-controlled CTAS destination and content.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
3.9
CVE-2026-10774
SUMMARY

Zephyr's Bluetooth Mesh subnet key management leaks one PSA Crypto key slot on every subnet-key teardown. In subsys/bluetooth/mesh/subnet.c, net_keys_create() imports the Private Beacon Key into a PSA key slot under CONFIG_BT_MESH_PRIV_BEACONS (enabled by default), but subnet_keys_destroy() guarded the matching psa_destroy_key() with CONFIG_BT_MESH_V1d1. That Kconfig symbol was removed when explicit Mesh 1.0.1 support was dropped, so the destroy branch became permanently dead code and the import is never balanced by a destroy. The imbalanced teardown is reached every time subnet keys are destroyed: deleting a subnet (Config Server NetKey Delete), completing a Key Refresh Procedure (which retires the old key set), and resetting/re-provisioning the node. The over-the-air triggers are processed only under the node's device key, so they are exercisable by the provisioner or network administrator that owns the node, reachable over the Bluetooth Mesh network. With the default CONFIG_MBEDTLS_PSA_KEY_SLOT_COUNT of 16, repeated add/delete or key-refresh cycles exhaust the shared PSA key-slot pool after roughly a dozen rounds. Once exhausted, bt_mesh_private_beacon_key() and thus subnet creation fail: the node can no longer add subnets or complete key refresh, and other PSA crypto consumers on the device may be starved, until the device is rebooted. The fix aligns the destroy guard with the import guard (CONFIG_BT_MESH_PRIV_BEACONS) so each slot is freed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-02
UPDATED
Date2026-08-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
0.9