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

Comparison Overview

Telekom MalaysiaTelekom Malaysia
VS
Proximus GroupProximus Group
Telekom Malaysia

Telekom Malaysia

Jalan Pantai Baharu, Kuala Lumpur, 50672, MY

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
https://www.tm.com.my
740/1000Moderate

TM is the national connectivity and digital infrastructure provider and Malaysia’s leading integrated telco; offering a comprehensive suite of communication services and solutions in fixed (telephony and broadband), mobility, content, WiFi, ICT, Cloud and smart services...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:10,536
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Proximus Group

Proximus Group

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

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.proximus.com
762/1000Fair

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
Telekom Malaysia

Telekom Malaysia

-
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 Telekom Malaysia in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Proximus Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Telekom Malaysia (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Telekom Malaysia 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...
Telekom Malaysia

Telekom Malaysia

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
TEL2151311222
Proximus Group

Proximus Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
PRO5832158110525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9