Comparison Overview
Kyndryl

Kyndryl
New York City, US
Last Update: 11/09/2026
We have the world’s best talent that design, run, and manage the most advanced and reliable technology infrastructure each day. Together, we think holistically about the health of these vital technology ecosystems. We are a focused, independent company that builds on o...

T-Systems International
Hahnstraße 43d, Frankfurt am Main, 60528, DE
Last Update: 08/10/2026
Your digitalization partner with industry expertise With locations in more than 26 countries and over 26,000 employees (2024), T-Systems is one of the leading providers of digital services in Europe. The Deutsche Telekom subsidiary is headquartered in Germany and has a...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Kyndryl







T-Systems International






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Kyndryl has 31.97% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
T-Systems International has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Kyndryl (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Kyndryl cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - T-Systems International (X = Date, Y = Severity)
T-Systems International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Kyndryl

T-Systems International
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.