Comparison Overview

Aflac

VS

AIG

Aflac

1932 Wynnton Rd, Columbus, Georgia, US, 31999
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 600 and 649

Over 50 Million people worldwide have chosen Aflac because of our commitment to providing customers with the confidence that comes from knowing they have assistance in being prepared for whatever life may bring. With Aflac, whether you're a large business or a small one, you can provide your employees with the kind of benefits they’d expect from a bigger company, helping your business stand out from the crowd. Hundreds of thousands of businesses across the United States already make Aflac available to their employees—at no direct cost to their company. Choose from a wide range of products that can help your employees with health events—from accidents, to disability, to cancer, to life insurance. Your employees enjoy benefits from Aflac, all employee-paid. Please check out Aflac.com for more information.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 18,036
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
2

AIG

1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10020-1304, US
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 800 and 849

American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG) is a leading global insurance organization. AIG provides insurance solutions that help businesses and individuals in approximately 190 countries and jurisdictions protect their assets and manage risks through AIG operations and network partners. Additional information about AIG can be found at www.aig.com | https://www.youtube.com/aig | https://twitter.com/aiginsurance | https://www.linkedin.com/company/aig/ | https://www.facebook.com/AIGInsurance | http://www.instagram.com/aiginsurance/ AIG is the marketing name for the worldwide property-casualty and general insurance operations of American International Group, Inc. All products and services are written or provided by subsidiaries or affiliates of American International Group, Inc. Products or services may not be available in all countries and jurisdictions, and coverage is subject to underwriting requirements and actual policy language. Non-insurance products and services may be provided by independent third parties. Certain property-casualty coverages may be provided by a surplus lines insurer. Surplus lines insurers do not generally participate in state guaranty funds, and insureds are therefore not protected by such funds. AIG Social Media Community Guidelines: https://www.aig.com/home/about/social-media-guidelines

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 26,945
Subsidiaries: 16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aflac.jpeg
Aflac
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aig.jpeg
AIG
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
Aflac
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
AIG
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

Aflac has 347.76% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for AIG in 2025.

Incident History — Aflac (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aflac cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — AIG (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AIG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aflac.jpeg
Aflac
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Insider Threat (Prior Embezzlement), Physical Theft (Evidence Seizure)
Motivation: Financial Gain, Fraudulent Insurance Claims, Theft of Retirement Funds
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Breach
Motivation: Improving Security Posture, Reducing Support Costs, Enhancing User Experience
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2025
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: social engineering
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aig.jpeg
AIG
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

AIG company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Aflac company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Aflac company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas AIG company has not reported any.

In the current year, Aflac company has reported more cyber incidents than AIG company.

Neither AIG company nor Aflac company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Aflac company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other AIG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Aflac company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while AIG company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Aflac company nor AIG company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Aflac nor AIG holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

AIG company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Aflac company.

AIG company employs more people globally than Aflac company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Aflac nor AIG holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Aflac nor AIG holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Aflac nor AIG holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Aflac nor AIG holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Aflac nor AIG holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Aflac nor AIG holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H