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

Comparison Overview

MagentaZuhauseMagentaZuhause
VS
Deutsche TelekomDeutsche Telekom
MagentaZuhause

MagentaZuhause

Friedrich-Ebert Allee 140, Bonn, 53113, DE

Last Update: 01/03/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Your home is the most important place in the world. It's where you meet the important people in your life, it's where your personal memories are and it's where everything you hold dear is. The MagentaZuhause app makes sure that you are always connected to your home and ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:67
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Telekom

Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 140, Bonn, Germany, DE, 53113

Last Update: 13/07/2026

View Profile
798/1000Fair

Welcome to Deutsche Telekom. As one of the world's most valuable brands, we design innovative solutions and products in the areas of connectivity, networks, digitalization and security. #connectingyourworld At Deutsche Telekom, we believe that each and every one of us...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:66,526
Subsidiaries:59
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MagentaZuhause

MagentaZuhause

-
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
Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Telekom

-
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)

No incidents recorded for MagentaZuhause in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Deutsche Telekom has 3.85% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

MagentaZuhause cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Deutsche Telekom (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Deutsche Telekom 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...
MagentaZuhause

MagentaZuhause

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Telekom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOV1776717678

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1