Comparison Overview
Proximus Group

Proximus Group
Boulevard du Roi Albert II 27, Brussels, 1030, BE
Last Update: 14/09/2026
Proximus Group is a provider of future-proof connectivity, IT and digital services, headquartered in Brussels. The Group is actively engaged in building a connected world that people trust, so society blooms. The Domestic segment is focused on providing state-of-the ar...

A1 Telekom Austria Group
Lassallestrasse 9, Vienna, Vienna, AT, 1020
Last Update: 14/09/2026
WE ARE EMPOWERING DIGITAL LIFE We don't know what the world will look like in 2050, but we know that A1 Telekom Austria Group is geared up for current and future demands. We are a leading provider of digital services and communications solutions in Central and Eastern...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Proximus Group







A1 Telekom Austria Group






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Proximus Group in 2026.
Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for A1 Telekom Austria Group in 2026.
Incident History - Proximus Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Proximus Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - A1 Telekom Austria Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
A1 Telekom Austria Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Proximus Group

A1 Telekom Austria Group
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
HTTP/2 servers could end up crashing due to inadvertently modifying its HPACK encoder concurrently. This happens because the server modifies the HPACK encoder from two goroutines without synchronization: one uses the encoder to encode a HEADERS frame as part of a response sent to a client and the other modifies the encoder's table size when handling a SETTINGS frame containing SETTINGS_HEADER_TABLE_SIZE that a client sends. A malicious client can repeatedly send a request while changing the header table size to crash the server.
Multiple ECH outer extension references are not permitted under RFC 9849; previously, a client could send a well-crafted packet that could trigger memory exhaustion in the server process by specifying multiple references. We now reject these as malformed and curb the memory amplification vector as a result.
A trusted template author may have previously written a valid template wherein the use of the 'yield' keyword would not be correctly escaped. We now ensure that valid keyword uses are escaped and non-keyword uses are not escaped.
Improper certificate validation in Microsoft Partner Center allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.
Authorization bypass through user-controlled key in Microsoft Bookings allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.