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

Comparison Overview

GogoGogo
VS
Tata CommunicationsTata Communications
Gogo

Gogo

111 N Canal Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL, 60606, US

Last Update: 10/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.gogoair.com
753/1000Fair

Gogo is the Inflight Internet Company. We are the leading global provider of broadband connectivity products and services for aviation. We design and source innovative network solutions that connect aircraft to the Internet, and develop software and platforms that enab...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:923
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tata Communications

Tata Communications

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai, 400070, IN

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
771/1000Fair

Tata Communications is a digital ecosystem enabler that powers today’s fast-growing digital economy. We enable the digital transformation of enterprises globally, including 300 of the Fortune 500. We carry around 30% of the world’s internet routes and connects businesse...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:16,856
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Gogo

Gogo

-
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
Tata Communications

Tata 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 Gogo in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tata Communications in 2026.

Incidents

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

Gogo 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 - Tata Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Gogo

Gogo

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tata Communications

Tata Communications

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-22061
SUMMARY

Trident versions v25.02.1 through v26.06.1 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow an authenticated attacker with access to debug logs to view LUKS passphrases or SMB Active Directory credentials.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108269
SUMMARY

Remote Attestation TLS Clients provides multi-language utilities for verifying attested TLS connections. Prior to 0.5.0, the Rust and Go RA-TLS challenge verifiers accepted quote ReportData that was bound to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session before permitting application traffic. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing the clients to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in 0.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108268
SUMMARY

Enclave OS Virtual runs container workloads inside confidential virtual machines with end-to-end attestation. Prior to tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27, the TDX/GPU RA-TLS certificate issuer placed the certificate public-key hash and client nonce in quote ReportData but omitted a value bound to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-108267
SUMMARY

Privasys Go is a maintained fork of the Go programming language that adds RA-TLS support to crypto/tls. Prior to privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5, challenge-mode RA-TLS certificates bound quote ReportData to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept a handshake terminated by the attacker as an attested enclave connection. This issue is fixed in privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92705
SUMMARY

Aegisub is a cross-platform advanced subtitle editor. From 3.2.0 to 3.4.2, Aegisub automatically loads Automation scripts referenced by `Automation Scripts` metadata in `ASS` subtitle projects without asking whether the user trusts the scripts or their authors. An attacker can distribute a crafted `ASS` file together with a referenced malicious Automation script, and opening the `AS`  file executes arbitrary code with the privileges of the Aegisub process. From 3.4.0 to 3.4.2, inconsistent handling of embedded `NUL` characters between extension validation and filesystem operations additionally allows a crafted `ASS/Lua` polyglot to reference and execute itself as a single-file variant. The vulnerability is fixed in Aegisub 3.5.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-09
UPDATED
Date2026-10-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8