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, 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
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

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

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
http://www.rogers.com
642/1000Poor

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:28,375
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
1
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)

No incidents recorded for Safaricom PLC in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Rogers Communications has 83.49% 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
SAF1779179446
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ROGFID1774708017
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
ROGCYBTES1770724900

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-2026-44654
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, a shared-agent editor can delete file records through `DELETE /api/files` that the owner has reused across multiple agents. The deletion removes the file globally — not just from the shared agent — breaking the owner's other private agents that reference the same `file_id`. The private agent retains a stale `file_id` reference that no longer resolves. A shared-agent editor can destroy files that the owner uses across multiple agents. The owner's private agents — which the attacker has no access to — break silently with stale `file_id` references. This is a cross-agent integrity violation: editing access to one agent should not affect another. Version 0.8.4 contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-44653
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, users with only `VIEW` access to an MCP server can retrieve the server's decrypted admin-managed secrets through `GET /api/mcp/servers` and `GET /api/mcp/servers/:serverName`. The returned config includes plaintext values for `apiKey.key` and `oauth.client_secret`. This allows viewers of a shared MCP server to exfiltrate the underlying provider credentials. Version 0.8..4 contains a patch. Other remediations include: never returning decrypted admin-managed secrets to non-owners; redacting apiKey.key and oauth.client_secret from all API responses consider returning only boolean presence indicators for secrets, similar to the auth-values route pattern; and, if owners need to edit configs without re-entering secrets, preserving secrets server-side and returning placeholders instead of plaintext.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-42507
SUMMARY

When returning errors, functions in the net/textproto package would include its input as part of the error. This might allow an attacker to inject misleading content to errors that are printed or logged.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-42504
SUMMARY

Decoding a maliciously-crafted MIME header containing many invalid encoded-words can consume excessive CPU.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-41412
SUMMARY

alf.io is an open source ticket reservation system for conferences, trade shows, workshops, and meetups. Prior to version 2.0-M5-2606, the alf.io extension sandbox injects a fully-functional HTTP client (`simpleHttpClient`) into every extension script's scope. The `postFileAndSaveResponse()` method accepts an arbitrary filesystem path as its `file` parameter and reads the file contents using `new FileInputStream(file)` with no path validation, directory restriction, or allowlist. A malicious extension script can read any file accessible to the JVM process user and exfiltrate it to an attacker-controlled server via HTTP POST. Version 2.0-M5-2606 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2