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

Comparison Overview

Sangoma (LATAM)Sangoma (LATAM)
VS
EricssonEricsson
Sangoma (LATAM)

Sangoma (LATAM)

100 Renfrew Dr, Markham, L3R 9R6, CA

Last Update: 02/12/2025

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.sangoma.com
753/1000Fair

Sangoma Technologies is a trusted leader in value-based Unified Communications (UC) and UC as a Service (UCaaS) solutions for SMBs, enterprises, OEMs, carriers, and service providers. Sangoma’s Voice over IP offerings include on-premises and cloud-based phone systems, S...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Ericsson

Ericsson

Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, Stockholm, SE

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
http://www.ericsson.com
568/1000Very Poor

The future of mobile isn’t on the horizon, it’s happening now. At Ericsson, we’re building the foundation for an open network ecosystem where industries, developers, and enterprises thrive. The convergence of 5G, AI, cloud, and network APIs isn’t just a technological s...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:107,243
Subsidiaries:8
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sangoma (LATAM)

Sangoma (LATAM)

-
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
Ericsson

Ericsson

-
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 Sangoma (LATAM) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Ericsson has 183.02% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Sangoma (LATAM) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sangoma (LATAM) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Ericsson (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Ericsson 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...
Sangoma (LATAM)

Sangoma (LATAM)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Ericsson

Ericsson

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ERI1773189089
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
ERIDEFJOHROLVID1772180734
🔒 Incident : Breach
JOHROLERI1772202424

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-56785
SUMMARY

FlatPress versions prior to commit 10be83c, contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in comment and contact forms where name, URL, and email fields are rendered without proper output encoding in Smarty templates. Attackers can inject arbitrary HTML and JavaScript through these fields to execute malicious scripts in browsers of viewers including administrators, or bypass URL scheme validation to inject javascript: or data: URIs.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:H/SI:L/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
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-54588
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 use the attacker-controlled `HTTP_HOST` request header as the authoritative source for building callback URLs in its OIDC, SAML, and logout authentication flows without any validation. An unauthenticated attacker can poison the `redirect_uri` sent to the Identity Provider, causing the IdP to redirect the victim's authorization code to an attacker-controlled server - resulting in full account takeover with no credentials required. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-48493
SUMMARY

Snipe-IT is an IT asset/license management system. In versions prior to 8.6.0, a user with only users.edit can send a PATCH to /api/v1/users/{their_own_id} and grant themselves any permission except admin and superuser — for example `assets.view`, `assets.create`, `reports.view`, import, etc. The issue is patched in version 8.6.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-47693
SUMMARY

Poweradmin is a web-based DNS administration tool for PowerDNS server. Versions prior to 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 are vulnerable to CSV Injection (Formula Injection) in its log export functionality. User-controlled data — specifically the username field — is written to exported CSV files without sanitizing formula trigger characters (=, +, -, @). When an administrator exports activity logs and opens the resulting CSV in a spreadsheet application (Microsoft Excel, LibreOffice Calc, Google Sheets), any formula stored in a username is executed by the application. This can be used for phishing attacks against administrators or data exfiltration. Versions 4.2.4 and 4.3.3 patch the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.7
CVE-2026-12164
SUMMARY

Fortra File Integrity Monitoring (FIM), formerly Tripwire Enterprise, versions prior to 9.4.0 may assign incorrect or elevated effective permissions to users created by the tetool import command while FIM is running, particularly when the import also creates or changes roles or role-permission relationships.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-23
UPDATED
Date2026-06-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
0.8