Comparison Overview

Berkshire Hathaway

VS

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Berkshire Hathaway

US
Last Update: 2025-11-27

None

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 6,832
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

120 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, Indiana, US, 46204
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 600 and 649

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 our communities. Independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. ANTHEM is a registered trademark of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. Products vary by state. Learn more about our plans and legal information at www.anthem.com

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 10,485
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Berkshire Hathaway
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/anthembcbs.jpeg
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
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
Berkshire Hathaway
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Berkshire Hathaway in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield has 49.25% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Berkshire Hathaway (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Berkshire Hathaway cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Berkshire Hathaway
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/anthembcbs.jpeg
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Berkshire Hathaway company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Berkshire Hathaway company has not reported any.

In the current year, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company has reported more cyber incidents than Berkshire Hathaway company.

Neither Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company nor Berkshire Hathaway company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Berkshire Hathaway company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company nor Berkshire Hathaway company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway company nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway company nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company employs more people globally than Berkshire Hathaway company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield 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