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

Comparison Overview

Reliance CommunicationsReliance Communications
VS
VodafoneVodafone
Reliance Communications

Reliance Communications

A Block, 2nd Floor, Reliance Communications Limited, DAKC, Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai, 400710, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.rcom.co.in
749/1000Moderate

Reliance Communications Limited, founded by the late Shri Dhirubhai H Ambani (1932-2002), has Corporate clientele that includes 40,000 Indian and multinational corporations, including small and medium enterprises. Reliance Communications has established a pan-India, Ne...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:18,259
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Vodafone

Vodafone

1 Kingdom Street, Paddington Central, London, GB, W2 6BY

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.vodafone.com/
684/1000Weak

At Vodafone, we believe that connectivity is a force for good. If we use it for the things that really matter, it can improve people's lives and the world around us. Through our technology we empower people, connecting everyone regardless of who they are or where they...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:146,370
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Reliance Communications

Reliance Communications

-
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
Vodafone

Vodafone

-
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 Reliance Communications in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vodafone in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Reliance Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Reliance Communications 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 - Vodafone (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Vodafone 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...
Reliance Communications

Reliance Communications

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Vodafone

Vodafone

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
VOD93129723
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
VOD41441223
🔒 Incident : Breach
VOD202921222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1