Comparison Overview

Qualcomm

VS

Jazz

Qualcomm

Qualcomm, San Diego, CA, 92121, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

Delivering intelligent computing everywhere.

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 45,945
Subsidiaries: 3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Jazz

Jazz Digital Headquarter, 1- A, Kohistan Road, F-8 Markaz, Islamabad, Federal Capital Area, 44000, PK
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

Pakistan’s number one digital operator and the largest internet and broadband service provider with over 70 million subscribers nationwide. With a legacy of more than 27 years, Jazz maintains market leadership through cutting-edge, integrated technology, the strongest brands and the largest portfolio of value added services in the industry. Housing a nation-wide network of contact centers and an unparalleled fibre optic backbone of more than 25,000 kilometers, Jazz has already invested billions of dollars in the country to date. It also provides uninterrupted countrywide connectivity, unmatched customer services and international roaming in over 150 countries. As a responsible entity, the company passionately supports education, health and environmental initiatives and promotes sustainable business practices. Jazz offers exclusive & personalized tariff plans that empower customers and cater to the communication needs of a diverse group of people, from individuals to businessmen to corporate and multinationals. Through its innovative services and products, Jazz is set to bring about a digital revolution that will enable and transform societies towards a more progressive Pakistan.

NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 12,859
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qualcomm.jpeg
Qualcomm
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jazzpk.jpeg
Jazz
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Qualcomm
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Jazz
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Qualcomm in 2025.

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Jazz in 2025.

Incident History — Qualcomm (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Qualcomm cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Jazz (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Jazz cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qualcomm.jpeg
Qualcomm
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: GPU Driver Exploitation
Motivation: Full Device Control
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/jazzpk.jpeg
Jazz
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Qualcomm company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Jazz company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Qualcomm and Jazz have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Jazz company and Qualcomm company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Jazz company nor Qualcomm company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Jazz company nor Qualcomm company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Jazz company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Qualcomm company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Qualcomm company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Jazz company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Qualcomm nor Jazz holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Jazz company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Qualcomm company.

Qualcomm company employs more people globally than Jazz company, reflecting its scale as a Telecommunications.

Neither Qualcomm nor Jazz holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Qualcomm nor Jazz holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Qualcomm nor Jazz holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Qualcomm nor Jazz holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Qualcomm nor Jazz holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Qualcomm nor Jazz holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N