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

Comparison Overview

TPG TelecomTPG Telecom
VS
EchoStar CorporationEchoStar Corporation
TPG Telecom

TPG Telecom

Tower Two, International Towers Sydney, 200 Barangaroo Avenue, Barangaroo, New South Wales, AU, 2000

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
607/1000Poor

TPG Telecom is one of Australia’s largest telecommunication companies and operates a number of leading mobile and internet brands including Vodafone, TPG, iiNet, Internode, Lebara, AAPT and felix.   As a full-service telecommunications provider, TPG Telecom provides mo...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:5,343
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
3
EchoStar Corporation

EchoStar Corporation

9601 S Meridian Blvd, Englewood, 80112, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.echostar.com/
805/1000Good

EchoStar Corporation (Nasdaq: SATS) is a premier provider of technology, networking services, television entertainment and connectivity, offering consumer, enterprise, operator and government solutions worldwide under its EchoStar®, Boost Mobile®, Sling TV, DISH TV, Hug...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:28,281
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
TPG Telecom

TPG Telecom

-
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
EchoStar Corporation

EchoStar Corporation

-
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)

TPG Telecom has 46.81% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for EchoStar Corporation in 2026.

Incidents

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

TPG Telecom cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - EchoStar Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EchoStar Corporation 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...
TPG Telecom

TPG Telecom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
TPGM1-SINSTA1770746977
🔒 Incident : Breach
TPG1016082025
🔒 Incident : Breach
TPG619081925
EchoStar Corporation

EchoStar Corporation

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-67866
SUMMARY

Buffer Overflow vulnerability in Systerel S2OPC 1.7.3 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the LockedStaMac_ProcessMsg_DeleteMonitoredItemsResponse and SOPC_StaMac_NewDeleteMonitoredItems in the client wrapper DeleteMonitoredItems path

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-67863
SUMMARY

In open62541 1.5.5, a server-side use-after-free exists in the local MonitoredItem callback path. The issue occurs when UA_Subscription_localPublish continues to use the current UA_Notification after a callback invokes UA_Server_deleteMonitoredItem for the current local MonitoredItem. This allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
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:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19026
SUMMARY

H5Z__filter_nbit in H5Znbit.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 dereferences cd_values[0] through cd_values[4] without validating that cd_values is non-NULL or that cd_nelmts is at least 5, the fixed size of the filter's header. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted HDF5 file that stores the N-Bit filter pipeline message with zero client-data values, opened and read via H5Dread, e.g. by the h5ls or h5repack tools.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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-2026-19025
SUMMARY

H5O__layout_decode in H5Olayout.c in HDF5 through 2.3.0 does not validate that a chunked dataset's stored chunk-layout dimensionality matches its dataspace rank when an existing dataset is opened, whereas this check is performed only at dataset-creation time. This allows attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero and application crash in H5S__hyper_iter_get_seq_list in src/H5Shyper.c) via a crafted HDF5 file with mismatched chunk/dataspace ranks that is opened and read via H5Dopen2 and H5Dread, e.g. by the h5repack tool.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-05
UPDATED
Date2026-08-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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