Comparison Overview
Tigo Colombia

Tigo Colombia
Medellín, Bogotá, Cali, Barranquilla, Cartagena, Pereira, Manizales, Bucaramanga, Palmira, Valledupar, Villavicencio, Santa Marta, Montería, Tuluá, Tolú, Sincelejo, Cúcuta, Barrancabermeja, Armenia, Boyacá, Ibagué, Huila y Caquetá., Colombia 050022, CO, Medellín, Bogotá, Cali, Barranquilla, Cartagena, Pereira, Manizales, Bucaramanga, Palmira, Valledupar, Villavicencio, Santa Marta, Montería, Tuluá, Tolú, Sincelejo, Cúcuta, Barrancabermeja, Armenia, Boyacá, Ibagué, Huila y Caquetá., Colombia 050022, CO
Last Update: 25/04/2026
Tigo is one of the most relevant telecommunications service operators in Colombia, whose main purpose is to connect more and more Colombians through digital highways in fixed and mobile networks and a differential value offer, promoting innovation as a DNA for the organ...

Reliance Communications
A Block, 2nd Floor, Reliance Communications Limited, DAKC, Kopar Khairane, Navi Mumbai, 400710, IN
Last Update: 01/04/2026
Reliance Communications Limited, founded by the late Shri Dhirubhai H Ambani (1932-2002), has Corporate clientele that includes 40,000 Indian and multinational corporations, including small and medium enterprises. Reliance Communications has established a pan-India, Ne...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Tigo Colombia







Reliance Communications






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Tigo Colombia in 2026.
Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Reliance Communications in 2026.
Incident History - Tigo Colombia (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Tigo Colombia cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Reliance Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Reliance Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Tigo Colombia

Reliance Communications
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.
CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.
CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/commit/0589692d4b9a41d21b34ac48281e95f6df7f4ce5
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/commit/30aef805270976c42477e3f2a05f4e563d86e247
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/commit/4618f24165ad018ad3ed2636bf8c3bc87d2a3be2
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/releases/tag/v1.8.1
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/releases/tag/v1.9.1
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/security/advisories/GHSA-gqv6-pwcg-87r8
CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/commit/0b8c8af851260e85e8402af53233d1b8f87dfb6f
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/commit/0e63c2cca55763d8be6b226a234579280a09e7b6
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/commit/e5cc9b6a4ecc102a50d782093bfc72e0790abe3d
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/releases/tag/v1.8.1
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/releases/tag/v1.9.1
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/security/advisories/GHSA-xjr9-gg9q-jx3v
CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/commit/6a99df3242f54acd6f89edfd6050430b72d0c685
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/commit/86dd3232b6b8aaf32281be9e8d798afad6145d58
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/commit/9eb9b46d1c2af06fb71f656a02f4d5b4649c1f03
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/releases/tag/v1.8.1
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/releases/tag/v1.9.1
- https://github.com/CoreWCF/CoreWCF/security/advisories/GHSA-48pq-2xq3-c2m4