Comparison Overview
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
120 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, 46204, US
Last Update: 03/09/2026
At Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield we understand our health connects us to each other. What we all do impacts those around us. So Anthem is dedicated to delivering better care to our members, providing greater value to our customers and helping improve the health of o...

Progressive Insurance
300 North Commons Blvd, Mayfield Village, 44143, US
Last Update: 09/09/2026
Every journey has a beginning, and wherever you are on your career path, we want to help you along the way. At Progressive, we exist to help people move forward and live fully. We strive to create a welcoming and flexible work environment for everyone, where employees ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield







Progressive Insurance






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in 2026.
Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Progressive Insurance in 2026.
Incident History - Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Progressive Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Progressive Insurance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Progressive Insurance
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Trident versions v25.02.1 through v26.06.1 are susceptible to a vulnerability that could allow an authenticated attacker with access to debug logs to view LUKS passphrases or SMB Active Directory credentials.
Remote Attestation TLS Clients provides multi-language utilities for verifying attested TLS connections. Prior to 0.5.0, the Rust and Go RA-TLS challenge verifiers accepted quote ReportData that was bound to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session before permitting application traffic. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing the clients to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in 0.5.0.
Enclave OS Virtual runs container workloads inside confidential virtual machines with end-to-end attestation. Prior to tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27, the TDX/GPU RA-TLS certificate issuer placed the certificate public-key hash and client nonce in quote ReportData but omitted a value bound to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept an attacker-terminated connection as the attested enclave. This issue is fixed in tdx-v0.2.43 and tdx-gpu-v0.6.27.
- https://github.com/Privasys/enclave-os-virtual/commit/9a6be91e29f2b6738d0b77c33cd1ad5cd3d8a347
- https://github.com/Privasys/enclave-os-virtual/releases/tag/tdx-gpu-v0.6.27
- https://github.com/Privasys/enclave-os-virtual/releases/tag/tdx-v0.2.43
- https://github.com/Privasys/enclave-os-virtual/security/advisories/GHSA-p5fp-g94g-g9m9
- https://privasys.org/blog/binding-attestation-to-the-tls-session
Privasys Go is a maintained fork of the Go programming language that adds RA-TLS support to crypto/tls. Prior to privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5, challenge-mode RA-TLS certificates bound quote ReportData to the certificate public key and client nonce but not to the active TLS session. An attacker who obtained an enclave TLS private key could relay a genuine quote onto another connection, causing a relying party to accept a handshake terminated by the attacker as an attested enclave connection. This issue is fixed in privasys-v0.5.1-go1.26.5.
Aegisub is a cross-platform advanced subtitle editor. From 3.2.0 to 3.4.2, Aegisub automatically loads Automation scripts referenced by `Automation Scripts` metadata in `ASS` subtitle projects without asking whether the user trusts the scripts or their authors. An attacker can distribute a crafted `ASS` file together with a referenced malicious Automation script, and opening the `AS` file executes arbitrary code with the privileges of the Aegisub process. From 3.4.0 to 3.4.2, inconsistent handling of embedded `NUL` characters between extension validation and filesystem operations additionally allows a crafted `ASS/Lua` polyglot to reference and execute itself as a single-file variant. The vulnerability is fixed in Aegisub 3.5.0.
- https://github.com/TypesettingTools/Aegisub/commit/0a3073d59f10432eeebea65018b02ef4d0a87fff
- https://github.com/TypesettingTools/Aegisub/commit/b5bf23979e7453f7b1cc8ffeb82b3cc2d2ca75e6
- https://github.com/TypesettingTools/Aegisub/commit/e4099055711cce327840870c050ce46e58f4aee0
- https://github.com/TypesettingTools/Aegisub/security/advisories/GHSA-67hq-5vgg-6f23