Comparison Overview

LG Uplus Business

VS

Telstra

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

Telstra

400 George St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, AU
Last Update: 2025-12-25

We believe it’s people who give purpose to our technology. So we’re committed to staying close to our customers and providing them the best experience. And delivering the best tech. On the best network. Because our purpose is to build a connected future so everyone can thrive. We build technology and content solutions that are simple and easy to use, including Australia’s largest and fastest national mobile network. That’s why we strive to serve and know our customers better than anyone else – offering a choice of not just digital connection, but digital content as well. And that’s why we have an international presence spanning 15 countries, including China. In the 21st century, opportunity belongs to connected businesses, governments, communities and individuals. As Australia’s leading telecommunications and information services company, Telstra is proud to be helping our customers improve the ways in which they live and work through connection. Be first to know about Telstra news, advice and offers, as well as updates on our people and partners: tel.st/subscribe

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 35,264
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3

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/telstra.jpeg
Telstra
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
Telstra
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 Telstra 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 — Telstra (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Telstra 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/telstra.jpeg
Telstra
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 05/2021
Type:Data Leak
Attack Vector: Unspecified
Motivation: Ransom
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 07/2018
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Telstra company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to LG Uplus Business company.

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

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

Both Telstra company and LG Uplus Business company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

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

Telstra company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while LG Uplus Business company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Telstra holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Telstra company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to LG Uplus Business company.

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

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

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Telstra holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Telstra holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Telstra holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Telstra holds HIPAA certification.

Neither LG Uplus Business nor Telstra 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