Comparison Overview

Berkshire Hathaway

VS

Humana

Berkshire Hathaway

US
Last Update: 2025-12-12

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

Humana

500 W Main St, None, Louisville, Kentucky, US, None
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 650 and 699

Humana will never ask, nor require a candidate to provide money for work equipment and network access during the application process. If you become aware of any instances where you as a candidate are asked to provide information and do not believe it is a legitimate request from Humana or affiliate, please contact [email protected] to validate the request At Humana, our cultural foundation is aligned to helping members achieve their best health by delivering personalized, simplified, whole-person healthcare experiences. Recognizing healthcare needs continue to evolve for each person, for each family and for each community, Humana continuously creates innovative solutions and resources that help people live their healthiest lives on their terms –when and where they need it. Our employees are at the heart of making this happen and that’s why we are dedicated to building an organization of dynamic talent whose experience and passion center on putting the customer first.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 45,716
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

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/humana.jpeg
Humana
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
Humana
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)

No incidents recorded for Humana in 2025.

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

Berkshire Hathaway cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Humana (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Humana 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/humana.jpeg
Humana
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2023
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 09/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Humana company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Berkshire Hathaway company has not reported any.

In the current year, Humana company and Berkshire Hathaway company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Humana company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Berkshire Hathaway company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Humana company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Berkshire Hathaway company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Humana company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Berkshire Hathaway company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway company nor Humana company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Humana holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Humana company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Berkshire Hathaway company.

Humana company employs more people globally than Berkshire Hathaway company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Humana holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Humana holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Humana holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Humana holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Humana holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Berkshire Hathaway nor Humana holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N