Comparison Overview

China Life Insurance Co.Ltd

VS

Sedgwick

China Life Insurance Co.Ltd

西城区金融街, 北京, undefined, 100020, CN
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 800 and 849

China Life Insurance (Group) Company, headquartered in Beijing, is a large state-owned financial and insurance company. Its predecessor,PICC was founded in 1949 and the PICC (Life) Co.,Ltd was set up in 1996 after its separation from the former PICC. In 1999, it was renamed China Life Insurance Company. With the approval of the State Council and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, the former China Life Insurance Company was restructured as China Life Insurance (Group) Company in 2003. It has China Life Insurance Company Limited, China Life Asset Management Company Limited, China Life Property & Casualty Insurance Company Limited, China Life Pension Company Limited, China Life Ecommerce Company Limited, China Life Insurance (Overseas) Company Limited, China Life Investment Holding Company Limited and Insurance Professional College as its subsidiaries. Its business covers life insurance, property & casualty insurance, pension plans (corporate annuity), asset management, alternative investment, overseas operations and e-commerce. Through capital-links, it has invested in several banks, security firms and other non-financial institutions.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 42,345
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Sedgwick

US
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

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 administration, loss adjusting, benefits administration and product recall. With over 33,000 colleagues and 10,000 clients across 80 countries, Sedgwick provides unmatched perspective, caring that counts, and solutions for the rapidly changing and complex risk landscape.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 21,657
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-life-insurance-co-ltd.jpeg
China Life Insurance Co.Ltd
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/sedgwick.jpeg
Sedgwick
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
China Life Insurance Co.Ltd
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Sedgwick
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China Life Insurance Co.Ltd in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sedgwick in 2025.

Incident History — China Life Insurance Co.Ltd (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China Life Insurance Co.Ltd cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Sedgwick cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-life-insurance-co-ltd.jpeg
China Life Insurance Co.Ltd
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sedgwick.jpeg
Sedgwick
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

China Life Insurance Co.Ltd company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Sedgwick company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Sedgwick company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas China Life Insurance Co.Ltd company has not reported any.

In the current year, Sedgwick company and China Life Insurance Co.Ltd company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Sedgwick company nor China Life Insurance Co.Ltd company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Sedgwick company has disclosed at least one data breach, while China Life Insurance Co.Ltd company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Sedgwick company nor China Life Insurance Co.Ltd company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither China Life Insurance Co.Ltd company nor Sedgwick company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither China Life Insurance Co.Ltd nor Sedgwick holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither China Life Insurance Co.Ltd company nor Sedgwick company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

China Life Insurance Co.Ltd company employs more people globally than Sedgwick company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither China Life Insurance Co.Ltd nor Sedgwick holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither China Life Insurance Co.Ltd nor Sedgwick holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither China Life Insurance Co.Ltd nor Sedgwick holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither China Life Insurance Co.Ltd nor Sedgwick holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither China Life Insurance Co.Ltd nor Sedgwick holds HIPAA certification.

Neither China Life Insurance Co.Ltd nor Sedgwick 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