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

Comparison Overview

PROTELCOPROTELCO
VS
Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)
PROTELCO

PROTELCO

N/A

Last Update: 27/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.iliad.fr/
756/1000Fair

La mission de Protelco ? Satisfaire au quotidien les abonnés Freebox ! Entité du Groupe Iliad, connu du grand public par la marque commerciale Free, Protelco c’est 1050 collaborateurs, qui chaque jour, sont en contact avec les abonnés Free afin de leur apporter pleine ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:535
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)

Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)

Avenida Eng. Luís Carlos Berrini, 1376, São Paulo, 04571 - 000, BR

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.vivo.com.br
793/1000Fair

Vivo (Telefônica Brasil) is part of the Telefónica Group and with more than 94 million customers, of which 75 million mobile and 19 million fixed, we are the largest telecommunications company in Brazil, with nationwide presence and a complete, convergent portfolio of p...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:38,994
Subsidiaries:20
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
PROTELCO

PROTELCO

-
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
Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)

Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)

-
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 PROTELCO in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vivo (Telefônica Brasil) in 2026.

Incidents

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

PROTELCO cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Vivo (Telefônica Brasil) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Vivo (Telefônica Brasil) 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...
PROTELCO

PROTELCO

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)

Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8