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

Comparison Overview

TOTEMTOTEM
VS
A1 Telekom Austria GroupA1 Telekom Austria Group
TOTEM

TOTEM

La Défense Village 6, Puteaux, 92800 , FR

Last Update: 19/01/2026

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

🗼 TOTEM, filiale d'Orange, est une tower company de référence en France et en Espagne, spécialisée dans la gestion et le développement d’infrastructures de qualité. Nous permettons aux opérateurs de téléphonie mobile, acteurs de la radio, smart city et IoT d'aller plus...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:265
Subsidiaries:26
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
A1 Telekom Austria Group

A1 Telekom Austria Group

Lassallestrasse 9, Vienna, Vienna, AT, 1020

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.a1.group/
762/1000Fair

WE ARE EMPOWERING DIGITAL LIFE We don't know what the world will look like in 2050, but we know that A1 Telekom Austria Group is geared up for current and future demands. We are a leading provider of digital services and communications solutions in Central and Eastern...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:12,126
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TOTEM

TOTEM

-
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
A1 Telekom Austria Group

A1 Telekom Austria 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 TOTEM in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for A1 Telekom Austria Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - TOTEM (X = Date, Y = Severity)

TOTEM cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - A1 Telekom Austria Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

A1 Telekom Austria 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...
TOTEM

TOTEM

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
A1 Telekom Austria Group

A1 Telekom Austria Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
A1T2156311222

FAQ

Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between TOTEM company and A1 Telekom Austria Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between TOTEM and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between TOTEM and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - TOTEM or A1 Telekom Austria Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - TOTEM or A1 Telekom Austria Group ?
Between TOTEM and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between TOTEM and A1 Telekom Austria Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

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.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2