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

Comparison Overview

Outlook Email Signature | by XinkOutlook Email Signature | by Xink
VS
TELUS DigitalTELUS Digital
Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Christians Brygge 28, Copenhagen V, 1559, DK

Last Update: 14/05/2026

View Profile
752/1000Fair

In 2013, we revolutionized email signature management by launching our cloud-based portal on Microsoft Azure. Before this, IT departments were burdened with on-premises administration. Our intuitive, browser-based platform with role-based access empowers marketing and...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
TELUS Digital

TELUS Digital

510 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, V6B 0M3, CA

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
https://www.telusdigital.com
565/1000Very Poor

TELUS Digital crafts unique and enduring experiences for customers and employees, and creates future-focused digital transformations that stand the test of time. We are the brand behind the brands. Our global team members are both passionate ambassadors of our clients’ ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:39,811
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

-
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
TELUS Digital

TELUS Digital

-
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 IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Outlook Email Signature | by Xink in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

TELUS Digital has 98.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Outlook Email Signature | by Xink (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Outlook Email Signature | by Xink cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - TELUS Digital (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TELUS Digital 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...
Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Outlook Email Signature | by Xink

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
TELUS Digital

TELUS Digital

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TEL1773419339
🔒 Incident : Breach
TEL1773332910
🔒 Incident : Breach
CRUTEL1774405474

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8