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

Comparison Overview

MasTec Communications GroupMasTec Communications Group
VS
Reliance CommunicationsReliance Communications
MasTec Communications Group

MasTec Communications Group

806 Douglas Rd., Suite 1100, Coral Gables, FL, US, 33134

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://MasTec.com
765/1000Fair

MasTec Communications Group (MCG) is a division of MasTec that provides comprehensive services and turnkey solutions for Telecom operators. MCG is uniquely positioned to offer true and unmatched end-to-end services to our customers for planning, design, SAQ, constructio...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:3,182
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Reliance Communications

Reliance Communications

A Block, 2nd Floor, Reliance Communications Limited, DAKC, Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai, 400710, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.rcom.co.in
749/1000Moderate

Reliance Communications Limited, founded by the late Shri Dhirubhai H Ambani (1932-2002), has Corporate clientele that includes 40,000 Indian and multinational corporations, including small and medium enterprises. Reliance Communications has established a pan-India, Ne...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:18,259
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
MasTec Communications Group

MasTec Communications Group

-
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
Reliance Communications

Reliance 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)

No incidents recorded for MasTec Communications Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Reliance Communications in 2026.

Incidents

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

MasTec Communications Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Reliance Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
MasTec Communications Group

MasTec Communications Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Reliance Communications

Reliance Communications

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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