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

Comparison Overview

ITVITV
VS
MultiChoice GroupMultiChoice Group
ITV

ITV

White City Place, 201 Wood Lane, London, England, GB, W12 7RU

Last Update: 09/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.itvplc.com/
773/1000Fair

Shaping culture is in the DNA of ITV. So it’s not surprising that you’ll find us in every home in the UK. Our productions are famous all over the world and we’re at the forefront of the digital streaming revolution. But what might surprise you is the culture of our com...

NAICS:515
NAICS Definition:Broadcasting (except Internet)
Employees:8,852
Subsidiaries:1
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
ITV

ITV

-
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 ITV in 2026.

Incidents

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

MultiChoice Group has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

ITV 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...
ITV

ITV

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MultiChoice Group

MultiChoice Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MTNMULCELACCMINCYB1767603186

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/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
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
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:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/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
1.8