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 New MexicoBlue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico
VS
Zurich InsuranceZurich Insurance
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico

5701 Balloon Fiesta Parkway NE, Albuquerque, 87113, US

Last Update: 31/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.bcbsnm.com/
753/1000Fair

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico (BCBSNM) is one of the largest health insurers in New Mexico with more than 680,000 New Mexicans carrying a Blue Cross and Blue Shield card. Since 1940, BCBSNM has been committed to promoting the health and wellness of our member...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:5
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Zurich Insurance

Zurich Insurance

Mythenquai 2, Zurich, Zurich, CH, 8002

Last Update: 30/04/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
https://www.zurich.com
813/1000Good

Zurich Insurance Group (Zurich) is a leading global multi-line insurer founded more than 150 years ago, which has grown into a business serving more than 75 million customers in more than 200 countries and territories, while delivering industry-leading total shareholder...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:46,958
Subsidiaries:30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico

-
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
Zurich Insurance

Zurich Insurance

-
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 New Mexico in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Zurich Insurance in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - Zurich Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Zurich Insurance 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 New Mexico

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Zurich Insurance

Zurich Insurance

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Data Leak
ZUR024131222

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-58281
SUMMARY

Deserialization of untrusted data in Microsoft Edge (Chromium-based) allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-10660
SUMMARY

The Bluetooth BAP Broadcast Assistant GATT client in subsys/bluetooth/audio/bap_broadcast_assistant.c reassembled remote Broadcast Receive State data into a single file-static net_buf_simple (att_buf, BT_ATT_MAX_ATTRIBUTE_LEN = 512 bytes) shared by all connection instances, while the BUSY flag, long-read handle, and reset/offset state were per-connection. When the device acts as a Broadcast Assistant connected to multiple Scan Delegator peripherals, notification and long-read callbacks from different connections interleave on the shared buffer: the append in notify_handler (net_buf_simple_add_mem at the not-busy branch) performs no tailroom check, so receive-state notifications from two or more delegators accumulate on the same 512-byte buffer and, with a sufficiently large configured ATT MTU (BT_L2CAP_TX_MTU up to 2000) and two-to-three concurrent connections, write past the buffer into adjacent .bss (net_buf_simple_add only asserts in debug builds). Even below the overflow threshold, one connection's net_buf_simple_reset zeroes the shared length while another connection's reassembly and GATT read offset are in flight, mixing one peer's data into another's parse. A malicious or compromised Scan Delegator (or two colluding peers) over BLE can trigger this, causing out-of-bounds writes (memory corruption / denial of service) and cross-connection data corruption. The fix moves the buffer into the per-connection instance struct so each connection reassembles into its own buffer. Affects Zephyr releases shipping the Broadcast Assistant with the shared buffer, including v4.4.0 and earlier.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-61870
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a memory leak vulnerability in the VIFF encoder when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger allocation failures by processing specially crafted VIFF images to exhaust available memory and cause denial of service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 2.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 2.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.4
CVE-2026-61861
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the FormatMagickCaption method when memory allocation fails. Attackers can trigger memory allocation failures to cause a dangling pointer to reference freed memory, potentially enabling denial of service or code execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-61858
SUMMARY

ImageMagick before 7.1.2-26 contains a policy bypass vulnerability in the APNG encoder and external delegates due to missing validation checks. Attackers can write files to disallowed paths by bypassing configured policy restrictions through the APNG encoding process.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-11
UPDATED
Date2026-07-11
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8