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

Comparison Overview

GroupM Motion EntertainmentGroupM Motion Entertainment
VS
MultiChoice GroupMultiChoice Group
GroupM Motion Entertainment

GroupM Motion Entertainment

undefined, Los Angeles, CA, undefined, US

Last Update: 11/03/2026

View Profile

GroupM Motion Entertainment (Motion) funds, develops, produces, and distributes premium television, film, and digital content around the world in partnership with the world's leading producers, talent, networks, and platforms. Motion works across all programming genres ...

NAICS:515
NAICS Definition:Broadcasting (except Internet)
Employees:49
Subsidiaries:170
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
MultiChoice Group

MultiChoice Group

144 Braam Fischer, Randburg, Ferndale, Randburg, Gauteng, ZA, 2194

Last Update: 30/03/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.multichoice.com
593/1000Very Poor

MultiChoice Group is a leading entertainment company and we’re home to some of the most recognised brands on the continent. Our entertainment platforms – DStv, GOtv, Showmax and DStv Now – are a hub for more than 19 million people across 50 countries. Through Irdeto, we...

NAICS:515
NAICS Definition:Broadcasting (except Internet)
Employees:13,405
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
GroupM Motion Entertainment

GroupM Motion Entertainment

-
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
MultiChoice Group

MultiChoice 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Broadcast Media Production and Distribution Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for GroupM Motion Entertainment in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Broadcast Media Production and Distribution Industry Avg (This Year)

MultiChoice Group has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - GroupM Motion Entertainment (X = Date, Y = Severity)

GroupM Motion Entertainment 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 - MultiChoice Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MultiChoice Group 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...
GroupM Motion Entertainment

GroupM Motion Entertainment

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MultiChoice Group

MultiChoice Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MTNMULCELACCMINCYB1767603186

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67595
SUMMARY

VaahCMS versions 2.0.0 through 2.3.4 contain a malicious obfuscated JavaScript payload embedded in the Blade template responsible for rendering security OTP emails, allowing remote attackers to execute unauthorized code in any browser that renders the affected email template with JavaScript enabled. The payload establishes a WebSocket connection to a hardcoded command-and-control endpoint, installs a password-field keylogger using MutationObserver to capture dynamically added inputs, scrapes WhatsApp Web DOM content, and accepts remote commands to redirect or overwrite the rendered page.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/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
2.2
CVE-2026-15157
SUMMARY

undici does not validate the type property of a duck-typed blob-like request body before using it as the Content-Type header on the HTTP/1.1 dispatcher. In undici before 6.28.0, from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0, and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, an application that passes a hand-rolled blob-like body (via request, stream, pipeline, or dispatch) whose type is derived from untrusted input allows an attacker to inject CRLF sequences and append arbitrary HTTP headers, potentially smuggling a second request past the upstream. Native Blob objects are safe because their constructor strips CRLF from the type, and fetch is unaffected because it validates headers, but ecosystem libraries that build duck-typed blob shapes from user input can reach the vulnerable path. This is the same defect class as CVE-2022-35948 and CVE-2026-1527, on a header sink that the earlier fixes did not cover. The issue is fixed in undici 6.28.0, 7.29.0, and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-14643
SUMMARY

undici's cache interceptor mishandles optional whitespace placed around the equals sign of a qualified no-cache or private Cache-Control directive. In undici from 7.0.0 up to before 7.29.0 and from 8.0.0 up to before 8.9.0, the parser either drops the directive or stores a field name with literal quote characters, so the cache decision fails to recognize the qualification and the response is stored. In shared-cache mode, this lets a response containing one user's authenticated data be served from cache to a later caller, including an unauthenticated one, when both requests resolve to the same cache key. It affects applications that enable the cache interceptor in shared mode, forward Authorization headers upstream, and receive cacheable responses with qualified directives padded with whitespace around the equals sign. This is the whitespace-around-equals variant that the fix for CVE-2026-9678 did not normalize, and it is fixed in undici 7.29.0 and 8.9.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-69945
SUMMARY

kishan0725 Hospital Management System 4.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in /doctor/edit-patient.php?editid=1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-29
UPDATED
Date2026-07-29
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA