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
Deutsche TelekomDeutsche Telekom
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
Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Telekom

Friedrich-Ebert-Allee 140, Bonn, Germany, DE, 53113

Last Update: 15/05/2026

View Profile
798/1000Fair

Welcome to Deutsche Telekom. As one of the world's most valuable brands, we design innovative solutions and products in the areas of connectivity, networks, digitalization and security. #connectingyourworld At Deutsche Telekom, we believe that each and every one of us...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:66,526
Subsidiaries:59
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

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
Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Telekom

-
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)

Deutsche Telekom has 8.26% fewer 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 - Deutsche Telekom (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Deutsche Telekom 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
Deutsche Telekom

Deutsche Telekom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
LOV1776717678

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-10777
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in ealpha072 Student-Management-System up to 01451bd7a2f58cdda07bd0b86e3967582e3ecd08. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file admin/config.php of the component Administrative Backend. Such manipulation leads to improper authentication. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. This product utilizes a rolling release system for continuous delivery, and as such, version information for affected or updated releases is not disclosed. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-10775
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in sgl-project SGLang up to 0.5.11. Affected by this vulnerability is the function data_hash of the component Cache Handler. This manipulation causes denial of service. The attack is restricted to local execution. A high degree of complexity is needed for the attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. The pull request to fix this issue awaits acceptance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.6)
CVSS2
Base Score: 2.4
Complexity: HIGH
AV:L/AC:H/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.6
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/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
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-22055
SUMMARY

Active IQ OneCollect version 2.7.3 contains hard-coded credentials that could allow an authenticated attacker with low privileges to perform unauthorized AutoSupport operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-22054
SUMMARY

Active IQ Config Advisor version 6.7.3 contains hard-coded credentials that could allow an authenticated attacker with low privileges to perform unauthorized AutoSupport operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-10771
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in crmeb crmeb_java 1.4. Affected is the function RestTemplate.getForEntity of the file crmeb-common/src/main/java/com/zbkj/common/utils/RestTemplateUtil.java of the component base64 Qrcode Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-03
UPDATED
Date2026-06-03
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9