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

Comparison Overview

Telekom HUTelekom HU
VS
OPPOOPPO
Telekom HU

Telekom HU

Könyves Kálmán krt. 36, Budapest, Pest megye, HU, 1097

Last Update: 18/02/2026

View Profile
762/1000Fair

A Telekom a digitális optimistákat keresi, akik - álljon bármilyen szám is az anyakönyvi kivonatukban - hisznek benne, hogy a digitális technológia a fejlődés motorja, melynek állandó változásával együtt ők is képesek megújulni, épp úgy, ahogy a Telekom is folyamatosan ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:2,081
Subsidiaries:67
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
OPPO

OPPO

China Resources Tower, Shenzhen, 518000, CN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.oppo.com/en
800/1000Good

Founded in 2004, OPPO is one of the world's leading innovators of smart devices. With operations in over 60 countries and regions, OPPO's more than 290,000 points of sales and 1,900 official service centers share the beauty of technology with users all over the world. T...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:53,397
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Telekom HU

Telekom HU

-
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
OPPO

OPPO

-
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 Telekom HU in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for OPPO in 2026.

Incidents

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

Telekom HU cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

OPPO 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...
Telekom HU

Telekom HU

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
OPPO

OPPO

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
OPP603062425

FAQ

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