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

Comparison Overview

TalkTalkTalkTalk
VS
Claro BrasilClaro Brasil
TalkTalk

TalkTalk

Ordsall Lane, Salford, M5 3, GB

Last Update: 08/06/2026

View Profile
641/1000Poor

Welcome to the bolder, braver, electric green world of TalkTalk. We’ve got an updated look, but it’s not just a fresh coat of paint; it’s a new chapter aimed at delivering a better way to Wi-Fi. Part of our ongoing commitment to place customers at the heart of everythin...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:1,688
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2
Claro Brasil

Claro Brasil

Rua Henri Dunant, 780, São Paulo, 04709-110, BR

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.claro.com.br
804/1000Good

Prazer, somos a Claro! Aqui, temos um grande time que faz tudo acontecer! É com o esforço e a dedicação de cada uma de nossas Pessoas que somos hoje referência no que fazemos, atuando unidos no nosso propósito, que é “Conectar para uma vida mais divertida e produtiva”....

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:41,989
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TalkTalk

TalkTalk

-
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
Claro Brasil

Claro Brasil

-
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 TalkTalk in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Claro Brasil in 2026.

Incidents

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

TalkTalk cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Claro Brasil (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Claro Brasil 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...
TalkTalk

TalkTalk

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAL1780937547
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
TAL175781122
🔒 Incident : Breach
TAL232161122
Claro Brasil

Claro Brasil

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
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