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

Comparison Overview

wind trewind tre
VS
NokiaNokia
wind tre

wind tre

Via Monte Rosa 91, MILANO, 20149, IT

Last Update: 20/07/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.windtregroup.it
685/1000Weak

WINDTRE è l’operatore italiano che offre connessioni, energia e prodotti assicurativi*. Un punto di riferimento per le famiglie che chiedono affidabilità, convenienza e trasparenza nelle offerte e che possono usufruire di consulenza e supporto capillare grazie alle cent...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:7,160
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Nokia

Nokia

Karakaari 7, Espoo, Southern Finland, FI, 02610

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.nokia.com
802/1000Good

Nokia is a global leader in connectivity for the AI era. With expertise across fixed, mobile, and transport networks, powered by the innovation of Nokia Bell Labs, we’re advancing connectivity to secure a brighter world. Advanced connectivity is key to enable the oppor...

NAICS:517
NAICS Definition:Telecommunications
Employees:100,250
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
wind tre

wind tre

-
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
Nokia

Nokia

-
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)

wind tre has 46.24% 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 Nokia in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - wind tre (X = Date, Y = Severity)

wind tre cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Nokia 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...
wind tre

wind tre

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
CHE1784787889
🔒 Incident : Breach
WIN1784558266
Nokia

Nokia

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
NOK000031025

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
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:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9