Comparison Overview

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

VS

IAG

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

600 E Lafayette Blvd, Detroit, Michigan, US, 48226
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 750 and 799

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit corporation and an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. BCBSM's commitment to Michigan is what differentiates it from other health insurance companies doing business in the state. That mission has never changed. Nearly 70 years ago, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan started with a purpose to provide people with the security of knowing they have health care when they need it. Today, that nonprofit mission is the same and the company is accomplishing it in many ways, including: Offering access to health care coverage for everyone, regardless of circumstances Never dropping your coverage for health reasons Partnering with the state to cover more than 32,000 children through MIChild Providing financial support to 30 free clinics statewide Contributing more money than any other company to provide Michigan with better health and health care Advocating and educating through Alliance for Advancing Nonprofit Health Care For more on the history of BCBSM, please visit our section on historical highlights: http://www.bcbsm.com/home/bcbsm/1930.shtml

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 10,379
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

IAG

201 Sussex St, Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

IAG is Australia and New Zealand's largest general insurance company with a purpose to make your world a safer place, whether you are a customer, partner, employee, shareholder or part of the communities IAG serves across Australia and New Zealand. Our businesses have helped people recover from natural disasters, accidents and loss since 1851. In Australia and New Zealand we provide insurance under many leading brands, including NRMA Insurance, CGU, SGIO, SGIC and WFI; and NZI, State, AMI and Lumley Insurance (New Zealand). We also have interests in general insurance joint ventures in Malaysia and India. Increasingly, we see our role extending beyond paying claims to increasing awareness of risk, and helping communities reduce and prevent risk. We believe it is our responsibility as an industry leader to use our influence and role as a major investor, purchaser and employer for the good of everyone. For further information please visit www.iag.com.au.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 12,323
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/blue-cross-blue-shield-of-michigan.jpeg
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
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/iag.jpeg
IAG
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
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
IAG
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IAG in 2025.

Incident History — Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (X = Date, Y = Severity)

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

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

IAG cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/blue-cross-blue-shield-of-michigan.jpeg
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/iag.jpeg
IAG
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

IAG company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, IAG company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan company.

In the current year, IAG company and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither IAG company nor Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither IAG company nor Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither IAG company nor Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan company nor IAG company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan nor IAG holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

IAG company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan company.

IAG company employs more people globally than Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan nor IAG holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan nor IAG holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan nor IAG holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan nor IAG holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan nor IAG holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan nor IAG 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