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

Comparison Overview

Telecom EmpresasTelecom Empresas
VS
Safaricom PLCSafaricom PLC
Telecom Empresas

Telecom Empresas

Gral. Hornos 690, Capital Federal, Buenos Aires, AR, 1272

Last Update: 20/01/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.telecom.com.ar/
754/1000Fair

Somos una compañía dedicada al desarrollo tecnológico de las empresas, brindando soluciones de Conectividad, Cloud, IoT, Datacenter, Seguridad, Comunicaciones y Video & Media para su transformación digital.

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:202
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Safaricom PLC

Safaricom PLC

Waiyaki Way, Westlands, Nairobi, P.O. Box 66827, 00800, Nairobi , KE

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://safaricom.co.ke/
727/1000Moderate

Safaricom is the leading provider of converged communication solutions in Kenya. In addition to providing a broad range of first-class products and services for Telephony, Broadband Internet and Financial services, Safaricom seeks to uplift the welfare of Kenyans throug...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:17,457
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Telecom Empresas

Telecom Empresas

-
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
Safaricom PLC

Safaricom PLC

-
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 Telecom Empresas in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

Safaricom PLC has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Telecom Empresas (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Telecom Empresas 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 - Safaricom PLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Safaricom PLC 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...
Telecom Empresas

Telecom Empresas

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Safaricom PLC

Safaricom PLC

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAF1786084206
🔒 Incident : Breach
SAF1779179446

FAQ

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