Comparison Overview

LG Uplus Business

VS

Ooredoo Group

LG Uplus Business

32, Hangang-daero, Yongsan-gu, 04389, KR
Last Update: 2025-12-30
Between 0 and 549

.

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 9
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Ooredoo Group

100 West Bay, Doha, Doha, Po Box 217, QA
Last Update: 2025-12-25
Between 750 and 799

We are an award-winning international communications company operating across the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Asia. Serving consumers and businesses in 10 countries, we deliver a leading data experience through a broad range of content and services via our advanced, data-centric mobile and fixed networks. With a customer base of more than 138 million people, we work hard to provide the best customer and network experience we can. We believe in the power of mobile technology to bring about social and economic progress.

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 29,362
Subsidiaries: 9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lguplus.jpeg
LG Uplus Business
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ooredoo-group.jpeg
Ooredoo Group
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
LG Uplus Business
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Ooredoo Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

LG Uplus Business has 23.46% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Ooredoo Group in 2025.

Incident History — LG Uplus Business (X = Date, Y = Severity)

LG Uplus Business cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Ooredoo Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ooredoo Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lguplus.jpeg
LG Uplus Business
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Femtocell Security Flaws, Weak Authentication Certificates
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ooredoo-group.jpeg
Ooredoo Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Ooredoo Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to LG Uplus Business company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

LG Uplus Business company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Ooredoo Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, LG Uplus Business company has reported more cyber incidents than Ooredoo Group company.

Neither Ooredoo Group company nor LG Uplus Business company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

LG Uplus Business company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Ooredoo Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Ooredoo Group company nor LG Uplus Business company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither LG Uplus Business company nor Ooredoo Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Ooredoo Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Ooredoo Group company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to LG Uplus Business company.

Ooredoo Group company employs more people globally than LG Uplus Business company, reflecting its scale as a Telecommunications.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Ooredoo Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Ooredoo Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Ooredoo Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Ooredoo Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Ooredoo Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Ooredoo Group holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper Input Validation vulnerability in qs (parse modules) allows HTTP DoS.This issue affects qs: < 6.14.1. SummaryThe arrayLimit option in qs does not enforce limits for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2), allowing attackers to cause denial-of-service via memory exhaustion. Applications using arrayLimit for DoS protection are vulnerable. DetailsThe arrayLimit option only checks limits for indexed notation (a[0]=1&a[1]=2) but completely bypasses it for bracket notation (a[]=1&a[]=2). Vulnerable code (lib/parse.js:159-162): if (root === '[]' && options.parseArrays) { obj = utils.combine([], leaf); // No arrayLimit check } Working code (lib/parse.js:175): else if (index <= options.arrayLimit) { // Limit checked here obj = []; obj[index] = leaf; } The bracket notation handler at line 159 uses utils.combine([], leaf) without validating against options.arrayLimit, while indexed notation at line 175 checks index <= options.arrayLimit before creating arrays. PoCTest 1 - Basic bypass: npm install qs const qs = require('qs'); const result = qs.parse('a[]=1&a[]=2&a[]=3&a[]=4&a[]=5&a[]=6', { arrayLimit: 5 }); console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 6 (should be max 5) Test 2 - DoS demonstration: const qs = require('qs'); const attack = 'a[]=' + Array(10000).fill('x').join('&a[]='); const result = qs.parse(attack, { arrayLimit: 100 }); console.log(result.a.length); // Output: 10000 (should be max 100) Configuration: * arrayLimit: 5 (test 1) or arrayLimit: 100 (test 2) * Use bracket notation: a[]=value (not indexed a[0]=value) ImpactDenial of Service via memory exhaustion. Affects applications using qs.parse() with user-controlled input and arrayLimit for protection. Attack scenario: * Attacker sends HTTP request: GET /api/search?filters[]=x&filters[]=x&...&filters[]=x (100,000+ times) * Application parses with qs.parse(query, { arrayLimit: 100 }) * qs ignores limit, parses all 100,000 elements into array * Server memory exhausted → application crashes or becomes unresponsive * Service unavailable for all users Real-world impact: * Single malicious request can crash server * No authentication required * Easy to automate and scale * Affects any endpoint parsing query strings with bracket notation

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

A weakness has been identified in code-projects Refugee Food Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part of the file /home/editfood.php. This manipulation of the argument a/b/c/d causes sql injection. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/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
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in code-projects Refugee Food Management System 1.0. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /home/editrefugee.php. The manipulation of the argument rfid results in sql injection. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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
Description

Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel vulnerability in Mobile Builder Mobile builder allows Authentication Abuse.This issue affects Mobile builder: from n/a through 1.4.2.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Hiroaki Miyashita Custom Field Template allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Custom Field Template: from n/a through 2.7.5.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L