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

Comparison Overview

Alera Group Orange CountyAlera Group Orange County
VS
Suncorp GroupSuncorp Group
Alera Group Orange County

Alera Group Orange County

1500 Quail St, Newport Beach, California, 92660, US

Last Update: 08/11/2025

View Profile
749/1000Moderate

Alera Group Orange County is dedicated to creating exceptional outcomes for employers. We achieve this by bringing Fortune 500 innovations and strategies to the middle market and providing services that strategically pair each employer’s unique benefit philosophy with t...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:N/A
Employees:9
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Suncorp Group

Suncorp Group

80 Ann St, Brisbane, 4000, AU

Last Update: 07/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://suncorpgroup.com.au
787/1000Fair

Suncorp offers insurance products and services through some of Australia and New Zealand’s most recognised brands. Our purpose is to build futures and protect what matters – the focus of our company for more than 100 years. With the passion of our people, and our por...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:13,401
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Alera Group Orange County

Alera Group Orange County

-
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
Suncorp Group

Suncorp Group

-
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 Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Alera Group Orange County in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Suncorp Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Alera Group Orange County (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Alera Group Orange County cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Suncorp Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Suncorp Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Alera Group Orange County

Alera Group Orange County

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Suncorp Group

Suncorp Group

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-90461
SUMMARY

OpenStack Ironic through 38.0.0 may send a username and password to an unexpected remote host when Image Service is configured for HTTP(S) Basic Authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-90460
SUMMARY

An issue was discovered in OpenStack Keystone before 29.0.3. Tokens obtained via delegated authentication methods (EC2 credentials, application credentials, OAuth1 access tokens, and trusts) are not blocked from creating, modifying, or deleting credentials via the /v3/credentials API. EC2-derived tokens can additionally read credential blobs, exposing TOTP MFA seeds and other secrets. Also, PATCH /v3/credentials does not validate the requested post-update project_id, allowing any delegated token to move a credential to an unauthorized project. All Keystone deployments using delegated authentication are affected.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90457
SUMMARY

The administrative password is hashed using a comparatively weak, fast algorithm for the credential store backing one authentication path, and the file containing that hash is written with permissions allowing it to be read by any local user. This is inconsistent with a separate, stronger hashing algorithm used for the same password on another authentication path. A party able to read this file, including a local user or a party with access to a configuration backup, could feasibly recover the underlying password through offline computation, compromising the administrative credential across every path that accepts it.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90456
SUMMARY

An example environment-configuration file for a bundled inventory-management component ships with a fixed, publicly-known administrative password. A deployment that copies this example file into active configuration without running the setup routine that regenerates credentials will expose that component's administrative interface to anyone aware of the default value.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-90455
SUMMARY

A prior update that raised a bundled HTTP client library to a version remediating known vulnerabilities was later reverted, reintroducing the earlier, vulnerable version into a log-processing component. The only code path in that component using the library issues a request to a single fixed, trusted vendor URL at initialization and does not process attacker-controlled input through the library, limiting practical exploitability of the reintroduced version in this context.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-11
UPDATED
Date2026-09-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA