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

Comparison Overview

Tango LuxembourgTango Luxembourg
VS
Proximus GroupProximus Group
Tango Luxembourg

Tango Luxembourg

18, Rue du Puits Romain, Bertrange, L-8070, LU

Last Update: 01/05/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.tango.lu
752/1000Fair

Tango est le premier opérateur alternatif luxembourgeois proposant des services de TV, internet, téléphonie fixe et mobile aux clients résidentiels, indépendants et petites entreprises. Avec au cœur de son ADN un goût certain pour le challenge, la simplicité et la clar...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:57
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Proximus Group

Proximus Group

Boulevard du Roi Albert II 27, Brussels, 1030, BE

Last Update: 06/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.proximus.com
764/1000Fair

Proximus Group is a provider of future-proof connectivity, IT and digital services, headquartered in Brussels. The Group is actively engaged in building a connected world that people trust, so society blooms. The Domestic segment is focused on providing state-of-the ar...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:13,195
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tango Luxembourg

Tango Luxembourg

-
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
Proximus Group

Proximus 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)

No incidents recorded for Tango Luxembourg in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Proximus Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Tango Luxembourg (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tango Luxembourg cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Proximus Group 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...
Tango Luxembourg

Tango Luxembourg

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Proximus Group

Proximus Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PRO5832158110525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8