Qualcomm
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
Comparison Overview
Qualcomm
VS
vivo
vivo
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
vivo is a technology company that creates great products based on a design-driven value, with smart devices and intelligent services as its core. The company aims to build a bridge between humans and the digital world. Through unique creativity, vivo provides users with an increasingly convenient mobile and digital life. vivo has over 18,000 employees across the globe. While bringing together and developing the best local talents to deliver excellence, vivo is supported by a network of 10 R&D centers in Shenzhen, Dongguan, Nanjing, Beijing, Hangzhou, Shanghai, Xi'an, Taipei, Tokyo and San Diego, focusing on the development of state-of-the-art consumer technologies, including 5G, artificial intelligence, industrial design, imaging system and other up-and-coming technologies. vivo has also set up 7 production bases (including brand-authorized manufacturing centers), across China, South- and Southeast Asia, and more regions, with an annual production capacity of nearly 200 million smartphones. As of now, vivo has branched out its sales network across more than 60 countries and regions, and is winning more than 400 million users worldwide with its superior products and services. Following the company's core values, which include Benfen, design-driven value, user-orientation, continuous learning and team spirit. vivo has implemented a sustainable development strategy, with the vision of developing into a healthier, more sustainable world-class corporation. Official Site: www.vivo.com/en Facebook: @vivoGlobal Instagram: @vivo_global
NAICS: 517
NAICS Definition: Telecommunications
Employees: 18,472
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Compliance Badges Comparison
Security & Compliance Standards Overview
Qualcomm
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
Not verified
GDPR
Not verified
PCI DSS
Not verified
HIPAA
Not verified
vivo
ISO 27001
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
Not verified
GDPR
Not verified
PCI DSS
Not verified
HIPAA
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Qualcomm
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
vivo
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 vivo in 2025.
Incident History — Qualcomm (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Qualcomm cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Incident History — vivo (X = Date, Y = Severity)
vivo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries
Notable Incidents
Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company
Qualcomm
Incidents
Date Detected: 8/2024
Type:Vulnerability
Attack Vector: GPU Driver Exploitation
Motivation: Full Device Control
Blog: Blog
vivo
Incidents
No Incident
FAQ
Qualcomm company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to vivo company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.
Qualcomm company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas vivo company has not reported any.
In the current year, vivo company and Qualcomm company have not reported any cyber incidents.
Neither vivo company nor Qualcomm company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.
Neither vivo company nor Qualcomm company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.
Neither vivo company nor Qualcomm company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.
Qualcomm company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while vivo company has not reported such incidents publicly.
Neither Qualcomm nor vivo holds any compliance certifications.
Neither company holds any compliance certifications.
vivo company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Qualcomm company.
Qualcomm company employs more people globally than vivo company, reflecting its scale as a Telecommunications.
Neither Qualcomm nor vivo holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.
Neither Qualcomm nor vivo holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.
Neither Qualcomm nor vivo holds ISO 27001 certification.
Neither Qualcomm nor vivo holds PCI DSS certification.
Neither Qualcomm nor vivo holds HIPAA certification.
Neither Qualcomm nor vivo 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
