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

Comparison Overview

VodafoneVodafone
VS
AT&TAT&T
Vodafone

Vodafone

1 Kingdom Street, London, W2 6BY, GB

Last Update: 23/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.vodafone.com/
521/1000Critical

At Vodafone, our purpose is to connect everyone. From the seabed to the stars, we provide innovative mobile and fixed connectivity solutions to empower our customers across the globe. And we're constantly expanding coverage to bridge continents and spread inclusion, eve...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:156,565
Subsidiaries:18
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
7
Attack type number
4
AT&T

AT&T

208 S. Akard Street, Dallas, 75202, US

Last Update: 26/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
http://www.att.com
100/1000Critical

We understand that our customers want an easier, less complicated life. We’re using our network, labs, products, services, and people to create a world where everything works together seamlessly, and life is better as a result. How will we continue to drive for thi...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:194,164
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
10
Known data breaches
27
Attack type number
4

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Vodafone

Vodafone

-
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
AT&T

AT&T

-
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)

Vodafone has 1.52% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Telecommunications Industry Avg (This Year)

AT&T has 870.87% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

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

Vodafone cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - AT&T (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AT&T 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...
Vodafone

Vodafone

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
MICVODSAF1787473590
🔒 Incident : Breach
HCLTAT1786448292
🔒 Incident : Breach
VOD93129723
AT&T

AT&T

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MCDCITSHEVODVERATTGITCURAUSVMW1787509645
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
CMEVERCYRATT1787768910
🔒 Incident : Breach
ATTIBM1781168591

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-80138
SUMMARY

ClipBucket V5's web installer fails to properly validate or escape the php_cli_filepath parameter before passing it to shell execution. Unauthenticated attackers can submit a crafted POST request to the installer with a malicious php_cli_filepath value to execute arbitrary commands as the web server user.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-79912
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The impacted element is the function getCurrentTime of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi. Performing a manipulation of the argument ntp_server results in command injection. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
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:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L/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
3.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-79911
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in TOTOLINK N600R 4.3.0cu.7647_B20210106. The affected element is the function setSystemConfig of the file /cgi-bin/cstecgi.cgi of the component CGI Handler. Such manipulation of the argument Hostname leads to stack-based buffer overflow. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-70665
SUMMARY

Doorkeeper OpenID Connect implements an OpenID Connect authentication provider for Rails applications on top of Doorkeeper. Prior to 1.10.4, the Dynamic Client Registration (DCR) endpoint persists client-supplied scopes without validating them against the server's configured scope set. Under certain conditions, this allows a self-registered client to obtain scopes beyond what the server intended to grant. In DynamicClientRegistrationController#application_params, the scopes attribute is assigned directly from params[:scope] with no validation against Doorkeeper.configuration.scopes or optional_scopes. Combined with enforce_configured_scopes being off by default and Doorkeeper's ScopeChecker prioritizing application-level scopes over server-level scopes, this creates a privilege escalation path. This issue is fixed in version 1.10.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-55805
SUMMARY

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ("Cross-site Scripting") vulnerability in Drupal Drupal core allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Drupal core versions: from 0.0.0 to 10.6.13, from 11.3.0 to 11.3.14, from 11.4.0 to 11.4.4, from 0.0.0 to 11.0.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.1.*, from 0.0.0 to 11.2.*.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-25
UPDATED
Date2026-08-25
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA