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
Rogers CommunicationsRogers Communications
Safaricom PLC

Safaricom PLC

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

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://safaricom.co.ke/
728/1000Moderate

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:17,457
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

333 Bloor Street East, Toronto, M4W 1G9, CA

Last Update: 11/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.rogers.com
504/1000Critical

Rogers is Canada’s communications and entertainment company, driven to connect and entertain Canadians. For more information, please visit rogers.com  or  investors.rogers.com. Déterminée à connecter et à divertir les Canadiens et Canadiennes, Rogers est la référence ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:28,354
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
2

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
Rogers Communications

Rogers 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

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Safaricom PLC has 45.95% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Rogers Communications has 197.03% 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 - Rogers Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rogers Communications 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
SAF1786084206
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAF1779179446
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROGFID1774708017
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ROGCYBTES1770724900
🔒 Incident : Breach
FIDLOBROGARDTEL1785321269

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-103761
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a memory exhaustion vulnerability in TransferMetadata::receivePeerNotify that allows unauthenticated attackers to grow process memory without limit. Attackers can repeatedly send notify frames up to 1 MB to the handshake RPC port, filling the uncapped notifys vector until the out-of-memory killer terminates the engine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-103760
SUMMARY

Mooncake transfer engine through 0.3.13.post1 contains a denial of service vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to block the handshake daemon by never reading replies. Attackers can send a Metadata request to the handshake RPC port and stall SocketHandShakePlugin's single listener thread in writeFully(), breaking all subsequent handshakes, metadata fetches, notify and probe requests.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2025-71427
SUMMARY

Office-PowerPoint-MCP-Server through 2.0.7 contains a path traversal vulnerability that allows MCP callers to write and read files outside the working directory by supplying absolute paths or ../ sequences. Attackers can steer an AI agent via prompt injection to abuse save_presentation, open_presentation, or manage_image output_path to overwrite any server-writable file or load external files.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86344
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in 389-ds-base. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a complete LDAP operation followed by the first bytes of an incomplete LDAPMessage on the same connection, causing the server to hand that connection to a second worker thread before the first worker's result is flushed. The second worker blocks until nsslapd-ioblocktimeout while holding the connection mutex, preventing delivery of the completed operation's result. Repeating this across a small number of connections proportional to the configured worker-thread pool size exhausts the entire pool under default configuration, denying service to all clients (anonymous and authenticated, plaintext and TLS) for as long as the attacker maintains the connections.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-71454
SUMMARY

Improper neutralization of input during web page generation ('cross-site scripting') vulnerability in CWE-79 - Cross-site Scripting CAPEC-63 allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This issue affects CAPEC-63: before 3.0b63.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-01
UPDATED
Date2026-10-01
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA