Comparison Overview
Vodafone

Vodafone
1 Kingdom Street, Paddington Central, London, GB, W2 6BY
Last Update: 02/04/2026
At Vodafone, we believe that connectivity is a force for good. If we use it for the things that really matter, it can improve people's lives and the world around us. Through our technology we empower people, connecting everyone regardless of who they are or where they...

ZTE Corporation
ZTE Corporation Hi-Tech Road South, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, CN, 518057
Last Update: 01/04/2026
ZTE connects the world with continuous innovation for a better future. The company provides innovative technologies and integrated solutions, and its portfolio spans communication networks, computing infrastructure, industry digital solutions, and personal and home sm...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Vodafone







ZTE Corporation






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

Vodafone

ZTE Corporation
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.