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

Comparison Overview

Proximus LuxembourgProximus Luxembourg
VS
CDWCDW
Proximus Luxembourg

Proximus Luxembourg

18, Rue du Puits Romain, Bertrange, 8070, LU

Last Update: 01/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.proximus.lu
753/1000Fair

Proximus Luxembourg, which operates under the brands Proximus NXT, Codit Luxembourg and Tango, is a subsidiary of the Proximus Group, the leading provider of telephony, Internet, TV and ICT services in Belgium. It participates in the development of telecommunication inf...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:400
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
CDW

CDW

200 N. Milwaukee Ave., Vernon Hills, 60061, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cdw.com
788/1000Fair

At CDW, we know how to make technology work so people can do great things. Our experts bring a full-stack, full-lifestyle approach with custom solutions, services and relationships to bring your vision to life. Through decades of experience, scale, and deep industry e...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:18,115
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Proximus Luxembourg

Proximus Luxembourg

-
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
CDW

CDW

-
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 Proximus Luxembourg in 2026.

Incidents

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

No incidents recorded for CDW in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Proximus Luxembourg (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Proximus Luxembourg cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

CDW 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...
Proximus Luxembourg

Proximus Luxembourg

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
CDW

CDW

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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