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

Comparison Overview

Partner with BGAPartner with BGA
VS
SedgwickSedgwick
Partner with BGA

Partner with BGA

N/A

Last Update: 28/01/2026

View Profile
769/1000Fair

We bring over 30 years of experience, so you can count on us to deliver up to date information through the ever changing Affordable Care Act. Call Billy today to get started 602-776-1314.

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:1
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
Partner with BGA

Partner with BGA

-
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 Partner with BGA in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sedgwick in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Partner with BGA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Partner with BGA 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...
Partner with BGA

Partner with BGA

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Sedgwick

Sedgwick

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
SEDSED1767602047
🔒 Incident : Breach
SED549072725

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-71194
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.2, the mDNS handler performs pool-blind lookups when resolving record queries and NOTIFY requests. When two zones with the same name exist across different pools, the lookup fails with a deterministic error, causing the handler to return REFUSED for all DNS queries through that path. The _handle_notify path is exploitable via a single unauthenticated UDP packet. This is independently reachable through the cross-tenant zone overlap described in a different recent CVE, and also affects legitimate same-tenant cross-pool configurations. BIND9 views do not mitigate this issue as mDNS is a shared service upstream of any view configuration.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-71193
SUMMARY

In OpenStack Designate before 22.0.1, zone creation checks (_is_subzone, _is_superzone, and the duplicate-zone DB constraint) are scoped to the target pool only. An authenticated user can bypass these checks by scheduling a zone to a different pool via the AttributeFilter scheduler, creating an overlapping zone that conflicts with another tenant's zone. This enables cross-tenant DNS hijack (redirecting traffic to attacker-controlled IPs) and DNS denial of service (NODATA responses). Exploitation requires a multi-pool deployment with AttributeFilter enabled in scheduler_filters, which is a non-default but documented and supported configuration for self-service tiering.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-49481
SUMMARY

UpSnap is a wake on lan web app. Versions prior to 5.4.0 have an OS command injection vulnerability in the UpSnap’s device management functionality due to the presence of unsafe shell command template interpolation using the ip and the mac fields. User-controlled values can be inserted into the wake_cmd and shutdown_cmd templates and executed via /bin/sh -c (Linux) or cmd /C (Windows) without sanitization, resulting in an authenticated Remote Code Execution (RCE). A low-privileged user with permission to create or edit devices can execute arbitrary operating system commands on the UpSnap hosted server. Version 5.4.0 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.6)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-47718
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. When `secureEnabled=true`, FUXA `1.3.0-2773` still allows guest and invalid-token requests to read project, alarms, and scheduler APIs. Version 1.3.1 fixes this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47717
SUMMARY

FUXA is a web-based Process Visualization (SCADA/HMI/Dashboard) software. In fuxa-server version 1.3.0, the GET /api/project endpoint exposes sensitive project configuration data to guest-context requests even when secureEnabled is enabled. Version 1.3.1 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-12
UPDATED
Date2026-08-12
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9