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

Comparison Overview

Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI)Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI)
VS
Rogers CommunicationsRogers Communications
Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI)

Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI)

241 Ralph McGill Blvd NE, Atlanta, 30308-3374, US

Last Update: 06/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://southern-telecom.com/
751/1000Fair

Southern Telecom, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Company that provides long-haul and metropolitan dark fiber connecting Atlanta with other cities throughout the Southeast. The company also provides network elements such as access to rights of way, conduit...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:12
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
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
Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI)

Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI)

-
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 Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Rogers Communications has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
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...
Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI)

Southern Telecom, Inc. (STI)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Rogers Communications

Rogers Communications

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA