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

Comparison Overview

Safaricom PLCSafaricom PLC
VS
AT&TAT&T
Safaricom PLC

Safaricom PLC

Waiyaki Way, Westlands, Nairobi, Nairobi, KE, P.O. Box 66827, 00800, Nairobi

Last Update: 19/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://safaricom.co.ke/
777/1000Fair

Safaricom is the leading provider of converged communication solutions in Kenya. In addition to providing a broad range of first-class products and services for Telephony, Broadband Internet and Financial services, Safaricom seeks to uplift the welfare of Kenyans throug...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:16,570
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
AT&T

AT&T

208 S. Akard Street, Dallas, 75202, US

Last Update: 17/07/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.att.com
100/1000Critical

We understand that our customers want an easier, less complicated life. We’re using our network, labs, products, services, and people to create a world where everything works together seamlessly, and life is better as a result. How will we continue to drive for thi...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:194,164
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
8
Known data breaches
27
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Safaricom PLC

Safaricom PLC

-
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
AT&T

AT&T

-
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 Safaricom PLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

AT&T has 669.23% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Safaricom PLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Safaricom PLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - AT&T (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AT&T 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...
Safaricom PLC

Safaricom PLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAF1779179446
AT&T

AT&T

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ATTIBM1781168591
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
OKTMICATTNVI1780611852
🔒 Incident : Breach
METORATICBANYAHATTADOAPPCOLGOO1777962591

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63261
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). A low-privileged authenticated user can send a specially crafted request to a Kibana machine learning feature, causing the server to exhaust available memory and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63260
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (CWE-400) in Kibana can lead to denial of service via Excessive Allocation (CAPEC-130). An authenticated attacker with low-privilege access can trigger a denial of service condition in Kibana by sending a specially crafted, oversized request payload. Processing this user-supplied input requires resource-intensive memory allocation that can exhaust the available heap memory in the Kibana process, causing it to crash and become unavailable to all users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63259
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) in Kibana can lead to information disclosure via user-supplied identifiers that reference scheduled query result data from Kibana Spaces the requester is not authorized to access.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-63145
SUMMARY

Incorrect Authorization (CWE-863) in Kibana can lead to integrity compromise of Machine Learning audit and notification records via Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (CAPEC-1). A vulnerability exists in Kibana's Machine Learning functionality where a Machine Learning management endpoint performs an insufficient authorization check. The endpoint validates only a coarse privilege level but does not verify that the requesting user has access to the specific Machine Learning job or notification resources provided in the request. As a result, a low-privileged user with Machine Learning access in any Kibana space can manipulate Machine Learning audit and notification records for arbitrary jobs—including jobs in other spaces or belonging to other users—by leveraging Kibana's internally elevated credentials to write to restricted Machine Learning system indices that the user cannot access directly.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
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
CVE-2026-63144
SUMMARY

Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) in Elasticsearch can lead to denial of service via a specially crafted search request submitted by a low-privileged authenticated user. A user with read-level index access can submit a request that triggers unbounded recursive processing within the Elasticsearch query evaluation component, causing a fatal error that terminates the affected node. In single-node deployments, this results in complete service outage; in multi-node clusters, it causes repeated node restarts and sustained availability degradation.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-21
UPDATED
Date2026-07-21
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8