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

Comparison Overview

M1 LimitedM1 Limited
VS
Rogers CommunicationsRogers Communications
M1 Limited

M1 Limited

10 International Business Park, Singapore, SG, 609928

Last Update: 29/03/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.m1.com.sg
709/1000Moderate

M1, a subsidiary of Keppel Ltd., is Singapore’s first digital network operator, providing a suite of communications services, including mobile, fixed line and fibre offerings, to over two million customers. Since the launch of its commercial services in 1997, M1 has ach...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:1,586
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

333 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, CA, M4W 1G9

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.rogers.com
642/1000Poor

Rogers is Canada’s communications and entertainment company, driven to connect and entertain Canadians. For more information, please visit rogers.com  or  investors.rogers.com. Déterminée à connecter et à divertir les Canadiens et Canadiennes, Rogers est la référence ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:28,375
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
M1 Limited

M1 Limited

-
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
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

-
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)

M1 Limited has 1.52% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Rogers Communications has 88.68% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - M1 Limited (X = Date, Y = Severity)

M1 Limited cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Rogers Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rogers Communications 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...
M1 Limited

M1 Limited

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TPGM1-SINSTA1770746977
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
SIMSTASINM1-1770638462
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
M1-SINSTA1770616764
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROGFID1774708017
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ROGCYBTES1770724900

FAQ

Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between M1 Limited company and Rogers Communications company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between M1 Limited and Rogers Communications, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between M1 Limited and Rogers Communications, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - M1 Limited or Rogers Communications ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - M1 Limited or Rogers Communications ?
Between M1 Limited and Rogers Communications, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between M1 Limited and Rogers Communications, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-49416
SUMMARY

The CONS_HISTORY ioctl handler did not adequately validate the requested history size. A large value caused an integer overflow in the buffer size calculation, resulting in a heap allocation smaller than expected. Subsequent initialization of the buffer wrote beyond the end of the allocation. An unprivileged local user with access to a vt(4) device can trigger an out-of-bounds write in the kernel, potentially escalating privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49414
SUMMARY

The ELF image activator cleared per-process ASLR preference flags for setuid binaries after the code that computes the PIE base address, rather than before. As a result, a user-requested ASLR disable was still in effect at the point where the base address was chosen. An unprivileged local user can disable ASLR for a setuid PIE binary by calling procctl(2) before execve(2). This makes exploitation of any separate memory corruption vulnerability in that binary significantly easier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49417
SUMMARY

Second, the audio buffer backing a mapping could be freed when the device was closed even though the mapping remained valid. The freed memory could then be reused elsewhere while still accessible through the stale mapping. The /dev/dsp device nodes are world-accessible by default. On a system with an audio device, either issue allows an unprivileged local user to read and write kernel memory, which can be used to escalate privileges, potentially gaining full control of the affected system. At a minimum, an attacker can crash the kernel, resulting in a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49413
SUMMARY

The Linuxulator determined whether a binary was set-user-ID or set-group-ID by checking the P_SUGID process flag. During execve(2), this flag is not yet set at the point where the auxiliary vector is constructed, so AT_SECURE was incorrectly set to zero for set-user-ID and set-group-ID executables. An unprivileged local user can inject a shared library via LD_PRELOAD into a set-user-ID or set-group-ID Linux binary, gaining the privileges of that binary.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49412
SUMMARY

The kernel handler for IPV6_MSFILTER dropped a serializing lock in order to copy the source-filter list from userspace, then reacquired the lock. During this window another thread could free the multicast filter structure, leaving the handler with a stale pointer to freed memory. An unprivileged local user can exploit this use-after-free to escalate privileges.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-27
UPDATED
Date2026-06-27
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA