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

Comparison Overview

California Department of InsuranceCalifornia Department of Insurance
VS
Tokio Marine GroupTokio Marine Group
California Department of Insurance

California Department of Insurance

300 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA, US, 95814

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.insurance.ca.gov
755/1000Fair

The California Department of Insurance (CDI) is the largest consumer protection agency in the state. In keeping with its mission to protect consumers, CDI oversees insurer solvency, licensing agents and brokers, conducting market conduct reviews, resolving consumer comp...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:734
Subsidiaries:29
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Tokio Marine Group

Tokio Marine Group

Tokyo, JP

Last Update: 15/06/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.tokiomarinehd.com
801/1000Good

Tokio Marine Group is a global insurance group that provides safety and security to customers worldwide. The Group consists of Tokio Marine Holdings and over 250 subsidiaries and 26 affiliates located in more than 480 cities in 46 countries and regions worldwide, opera...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:16,527
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
California Department of Insurance

California Department of 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
Tokio Marine Group

Tokio Marine Group

-
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 California Department of Insurance in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tokio Marine Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - California Department of Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

California Department of Insurance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Tokio Marine Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tokio Marine Group 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...
California Department of Insurance

California Department of Insurance

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Tokio Marine Group

Tokio Marine Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
TOK308092125

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1