Comparison Overview
Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)

Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)
Avenida Eng. Luís Carlos Berrini, 1376, São Paulo, 04571 - 000, BR
Last Update: 01/04/2026
Vivo (Telefônica Brasil) is part of the Telefónica Group and with more than 94 million customers, of which 75 million mobile and 19 million fixed, we are the largest telecommunications company in Brazil, with nationwide presence and a complete, convergent portfolio of p...

Rogers Communications
333 Bloor Street East, Toronto, M4W 1G9, CA
Last Update: 29/07/2026
Rogers is Canada’s communications and entertainment company, driven to connect and entertain Canadians. For more information, please visit rogers.com or investors.rogers.com. Déterminée à connecter et à divertir les Canadiens et Canadiennes, Rogers est la référence ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)







Rogers Communications






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Vivo (Telefônica Brasil) in 2026.
Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)
Rogers Communications has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Vivo (Telefônica Brasil) (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Vivo (Telefônica Brasil) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Rogers Communications (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Rogers Communications cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Vivo (Telefônica Brasil)

Rogers Communications
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A vulnerability has been found in SourceCodester Simple Online Food Ordering System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /admin/ajax.php?action=login2. The manipulation of the argument email leads to sql injection. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
A flaw was found in the ipa_getkeytab module of the community.general Ansible collection. The module's bind_pw parameter, used to supply the LDAP simple-bind password when retrieving a Kerberos keytab, is not declared with no_log, unlike the sibling password parameter in the same module. As a consequence, the supplied IPA/LDAP bind password is recorded in cleartext in the managed host's system journal/syslog (the module's "Invoked with" record), is included in the module's return values and verbose (-v) output, and is displayed in Automation Controller / AWX job output. The password is additionally passed on the command line to the ipa-getkeytab helper (as --bindpw <value>), exposing it in the process list to local users while the command runs. An attacker able to read these logs, job output, or the process table can obtain the directory bind credential, potentially compromising the accounts and objects that credential can access.
The device metadata import interface /device/instance/{productId}/property-metadata/import of jetlinks community 2.11 is vulnerable to Server-side request forgery (SSRF).
disconf (Distributed Configuration Management Platform) 2.6.36 is vulnerable to Incorrect Access Control. The config-fetching APIs /api/config/item, /api/config/file, /api/config/list and /api/config/simple/list are exposed without authentication. The LoginInterceptor explicitly whitelists these four paths, so any anonymous attacker can read every configuration item and configuration file managed by the config center.
Funiture 1.0.0 is vulnerable to SQL Injection in the backend tool interfaces /sys/tool/select.json and /sys/tool/update.json.