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

Comparison Overview

T-MobileT-Mobile
VS
MTS GroupMTS Group
T-Mobile

T-Mobile

12920 SE 38th St, Bellevue, 98006, US

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://t-mobile.com
439/1000Critical

As the supercharged Un-carrier, T-Mobile US, Inc. (NASDAQ: TMUS) is powered by an award-winning 5G network that connects more people, in more places, than ever before. With T-Mobile’s unique value proposition of best network, best value, and best experiences, the Un-car...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:95,423
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
4
Known data breaches
21
Attack type number
4
MTS Group

MTS Group

Moscow, RU

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.mts.ru
769/1000Fair

Mobile TeleSystems OJSC ("MTS") is the leading telecommunications group in Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, offering mobile and fixed voice, broadband, pay TV as well as content and entertainment services in one of the world's fastest growing regions. Including ...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:10,694
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
T-Mobile

T-Mobile

-
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
MTS Group

MTS Group

-
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)

T-Mobile has 111.64% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MTS Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - T-Mobile (X = Date, Y = Severity)

T-Mobile cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - MTS Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MTS Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
T-Mobile

T-Mobile

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
T-M1789446415
🔒 Incident : Breach
T-M1775514990
🔒 Incident : Breach
T-M1774995874
MTS Group

MTS Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-94094
SUMMARY

A flaw has been found in OpenClaw up to 2026.9.5. Affected is the function createCanvasHostHandler of the file extensions/canvas/src/host/server.ts of the component Canvas Host Route. Executing a manipulation can lead to denial of service. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used. Fix suggestion's "streaming/size-limit" was never shipped - latest 2026.9.5 still buffers the whole file via readFile() (src/canvas/serve.runtime.ts:17,114), unlike the sibling WS path which caps at 64KB. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-94093
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in DLR-RM stable-baselines3 up to 2.9.0. This affects the function PPO.load/load_replay_buffer/VecNormalize.load of the file save_util.py. Such manipulation leads to deserialization. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. In v2.9.0 the PyTorch tensor load path is hardened (weights_only=True), but that hardening was later reverted on master via PR #1913 "Hotfix: revert loading with weights_only=True" [blocked] to fix PyTorch 1.13 compat - so even the one "safe" path is inconsistent across versions. #2281 was closed as a duplicate of #1831 since both are unsafe pickle deserialization - but #1831's fix (PR #41) only gated the Hugging Face Hub loader in the separate huggingface_sb3 package. This finding covers the core stable_baselines3 load APIs (PPO.load, load_replay_buffer, VecNormalize.load), which have no safe mode or gate and remained exploitable in v2.9.0 until the outstanding hardening (PR #2264) ships.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/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
2.8
CVE-2026-94092
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in dmlc dgl up to 2.1.0. This impacts the function load_info/_read_torch_data of the file utils.py. Performing a manipulation of the argument path results in deserialization. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/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
2.1
CVE-2026-94091
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in piskvorky gensim up to 4.4.0. The impacted element is the function Load of the file gensim/utils.py of the component Model Loader. This manipulation of the argument fname causes deserialization. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Maintainer closed #3663 same-day with no comment, PR, or fix; repo's last push (2025-11-01) predates the report, so the unsafe pickle.load in SaveLoad.load remains unguarded at develop HEAD.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.5)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/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
2.1
CVE-2026-94090
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in JusticeRage Manalyze 1.0.0. The affected element is the function PE::_parse_debug of the file manape/pe.cpp of the component PE Parser. The manipulation of the argument misc.Length results in integer underflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The patch is identified as 3e299685759f4f767088871de58c5d07f98ee382. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-20
UPDATED
Date2026-09-20
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8