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

Comparison Overview

Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS)Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS)
VS
FreeFree
Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS)

Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS)

Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400 098, India, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400098, IN

Last Update: 13/03/2026

View Profile
770/1000Fair

Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS), a 100% subsidiary of Tata Communications Ltd, provides business transformation, managed network operations, network outsourcing, and consultancy services to telecommunication companies around the world. TCTS delivers o...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:4,983
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Free

Free

16, Rue de la Ville-l'Évêque, Paris, Île-de-France, FR, 75008

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://etre-free.fr/
773/1000Fair

Trublion historique des Télécoms, Free reste un opérateur pas comme les autres. Nous continuons de nous distinguer de nos concurrents par nos produits, par notre politique tarifaire ou encore par le ton employé avec nos abonnés. Cette différence a aussi construit la gr...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:12,938
Subsidiaries:9
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS)

Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS)

-
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
Free

Free

-
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 Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Free in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS) 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 - Free (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Free 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...
Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS)

Tata Communications Transformation Services (TCTS)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Free

Free

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1