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

Comparison Overview

LG유플러스 (LG Uplus)LG유플러스 (LG Uplus)
VS
EricssonEricsson
LG유플러스 (LG Uplus)

LG유플러스 (LG Uplus)

32, Hangang-daero, Yongsan-gu, 04389, KR

Last Update: 05/10/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.lguplus.com
354/1000Critical

Simply. U+

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:2,740
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
1
Ericsson

Ericsson

Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, Stockholm, SE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.ericsson.com
568/1000Very Poor

The future of mobile isn’t on the horizon, it’s happening now. At Ericsson, we’re building the foundation for an open network ecosystem where industries, developers, and enterprises thrive. The convergence of 5G, AI, cloud, and network APIs isn’t just a technological s...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:107,243
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
LG유플러스 (LG Uplus)

LG유플러스 (LG Uplus)

-
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
Ericsson

Ericsson

-
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)

LG유플러스 (LG Uplus) has 45.95% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Ericsson has 194.12% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - LG유플러스 (LG Uplus) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LG유플러스 (LG Uplus) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

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

Ericsson 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...
LG유플러스 (LG Uplus)

LG유플러스 (LG Uplus)

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SK-LG-1786027269
🔒 Incident : Breach
LG-0262902102325
🔒 Incident : Breach
LG-4862648103025
Ericsson

Ericsson

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ERI1773189089
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ERIDEFJOHROLVID1772180734
🔒 Incident : Breach
JOHROLERI1772202424

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-111865
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in THU-MIG yoloe up to 40cd606cabdbe2b566d6f14a6b162c89206e9a1b. This affects the function eval of the file ultralytics/nn/autobackend.py of the component AutoBackend Model Loading. The manipulation of the argument imgsz/names/kpt_shape results in improper neutralization of directives in dynamically evaluated code. The attack requires a local approach. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-111934
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.34.7 contains an IP spoofing vulnerability in the ExtractRealIPAddress middleware that trusts the leftmost, client-supplied X-Forwarded-For value instead of the client IP appended by a reverse proxy. Attackers can send forged X-Forwarded-For values through appending proxies to bypass per-IP rate limits on login, one-time passcode, and password validation endpoints, enabling brute-force attacks, and to falsify IP addresses recorded in audit logs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-111933
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a user enumeration vulnerability because userpassword.Compare() substitutes a placeholder hash derived from the string "hunter2" when a stored password hash is empty. Unauthenticated attackers can submit logins with the password "hunter2" and distinguish HTTP 403 from 401 responses to enumerate valid accounts and reveal the authentication provider of SSO-only users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
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:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
2.2
CVE-2026-111932
SUMMARY

Coder before 2.29.17, 2.30.0 before 2.32.7, 2.33.0 before 2.33.8, and 2.34.0 before 2.34.2 contains a stored HTML injection vulnerability because the ApplicationName and LogoURL appearance settings are rendered into HTML output without sufficient escaping. Attackers with the Owner role can store HTML markup in these settings that renders in the Coder dashboard and in SMTP notification emails sent to other deployment users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
1.7
CVE-2026-111931
SUMMARY

Coder from 2.0.0 before 2.34.8 contains an open redirect vulnerability in handleAPIKeySmuggling that allows attackers to redirect users externally via unsanitized r.URL.Path values. Attackers can craft links on trusted workspace app subdomains with paths beginning with double slashes, which become scheme-relative redirects to attacker sites for phishing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-17
UPDATED
Date2026-10-17
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
2.8