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

Comparison Overview

Orange EU PolicyOrange EU Policy
VS
Airtel AfricaAirtel Africa
Orange EU Policy

Orange EU Policy

111, Quai du Président Roosevelt, Issy-les-Moulineaux, 92130, FR

Last Update: 18/02/2026

View Profile

Welcome to the official LinkedIn page of Orange's EU policy team, where we share our latest information on policy priorities and upcoming events. Our dedicated EU policy team is committed to keeping you informed on a wide array of critical issues, including regulation, ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Airtel Africa

Airtel Africa

The Oval, Ringroad Parklands, Nairobi, 00100, KE

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://airtel.africa/
791/1000Fair

Airtel Africa is a leading provider of telecommunications and mobile money services, with a presence in 14 countries in Africa, primarily in East Africa and Central and West Africa. Airtel Africa offers an integrated suite of telecommunications solutions to its subscri...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:15,188
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Orange EU Policy

Orange EU Policy

-
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
Airtel Africa

Airtel Africa

-
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 Orange EU Policy in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Airtel Africa in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Orange EU Policy (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Orange EU Policy cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Airtel Africa (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Airtel Africa 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...
Orange EU Policy

Orange EU Policy

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Airtel Africa

Airtel Africa

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2