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

Comparison Overview

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of MontanaBlue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana
VS
SedgwickSedgwick
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana

3645 Alice Street, Helena, 59604-7982, US

Last Update: 27/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.bcbsmt.com/
752/1000Fair

We are the largest and most experienced health insurance company in the state, providing more than 300,000 Montana members with comprehensive and affordable health plans. No other health insurer can match BCBSMT's strong local presence of more than 500 Montana-based emp...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Sedgwick

Sedgwick

US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
https://www.sedgwick.com
673/1000Weak

Sedgwick is the world’s leading risk and claims administration partner, helping clients thrive by navigating the unexpected. The company’s expertise, combined with the most advanced AI-enabled technology available, sets the standard for solutions in claims administratio...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:22,216
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana

-
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
Sedgwick

Sedgwick

-
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 Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sedgwick in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Sedgwick 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...
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Sedgwick

Sedgwick

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SEDSED1767602047
🔒 Incident : Breach
SED549072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-53430
SUMMARY

Improper Handling of Highly Compressed Data (Data Amplification) vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc (GRPC.Compressor.Gzip, GRPC.Message modules) allows a denial of service via a gzip decompression bomb. This vulnerability is associated with program files lib/grpc/compressor/gzip.ex, lib/grpc/message.ex and program routines 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1, 'Elixir.GRPC.Message':from_data/2. 'Elixir.GRPC.Compressor.Gzip':decompress/1 calls :zlib.gunzip/1 directly on attacker-controlled bytes with no decompressed-size limit, ratio check, or incremental decoding. Because this module is the registered gzip GRPC.Compressor implementation, it is invoked automatically whenever an incoming gRPC frame carries the grpc-encoding: gzip header. :zlib.gunzip/1 allocates the entire decompressed result as a single binary, so a small highly compressible payload (for example a few kilobytes of zeros, which gzip compresses at roughly 1000:1) expands to multiple gigabytes inside a single call. The max_receive_message_length limit is enforced only against the already-decompressed message, so it provides no protection. An unauthenticated remote peer can send a single crafted frame to exhaust the BEAM node's heap and trigger an out-of-memory kill. This issue affects grpc: from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48854
SUMMARY

Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows unauthenticated attackers to exhaust the BEAM's memory and crash the server by streaming a large or slow-trickle unary request body. 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Adapters.Cowboy.Handler':read_full_body/3 (lib/grpc/server/adapters/cowboy/handler.ex) accumulates every received chunk into a single growing binary with no size cap. Additionally, when the client omits the grpc-timeout header, the per-chunk read timeout resolves to :infinity, allowing a slow-trickle client to keep the connection alive indefinitely while memory grows. A single connection is sufficient to exhaust server memory and crash the node. This issue affects grpc from 0.3.1 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-48853
SUMMARY

Deserialization of Untrusted Data and Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling vulnerabilities in elixir-grpc grpc allow unauthenticated attackers to crash the BEAM node via atom table exhaustion and, when a decoded term flows into a call site that invokes it, achieve remote code execution on the server. 'Elixir.GRPC.Codec.Erlpack':decode/2 (lib/grpc/codec/erlpack.ex) calls :erlang.binary_to_term/1 on the raw gRPC message body without the :safe option, no size bound, and no type guard. Any unauthenticated peer that sends a request with Content-Type: application/grpc+erlpack can send a crafted payload that mints arbitrary new atoms (which are never garbage-collected, exhausting the bounded atom table and crashing the VM) or that encodes a fun term which, if applied anywhere downstream, executes attacker-controlled code inside the server process. This issue affects grpc from 0.4.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
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-2026-48723
SUMMARY

The browserstack-cypress-cli is BrowserStack's CLI which allows users to run Cypress tests on BrowserStack. Versions prior to 1.36.4 are vulnerable to OS command injection via the cypress_config_file configuration parameter. In readCypressConfigUtil.js, the loadJsFile() function constructs a shell command by interpolating the user-controlled cypress_config_filepath value into a template literal, then executes it via child_process.execSync(). Shell metacharacters in the config path (specifically " and ;) allow breaking out of the quoted argument and injecting arbitrary commands. This issue has been fixed in version 1.36.6.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-48599
SUMMARY

Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key vulnerability in elixir-grpc grpc allows authenticated attackers to access or modify resources belonging to other users by smuggling a conflicting value for any path-bound field via the query string or request body. In 'Elixir.GRPC.Server.Transcode':map_request/5 (lib/grpc/server/transcode.ex), all three clauses use Map.merge/2 with path bindings as the first argument, giving them the lowest merge precedence. A request such as GET /users/me/profile?user_id=victim (or a POST with {"user_id": "victim"} when body: "*") yields a decoded protobuf struct where the path-bound field carries the attacker-supplied value rather than the router-extracted value. Any handler that uses the path-bound field for authorization, multi-tenancy scoping, or ownership checks is silently bypassed. This issue affects grpc from 0.8.0 before 1.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-15
UPDATED
Date2026-06-15
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: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