Comparison Overview

China Pacific Insurance Company

VS

IAG

China Pacific Insurance Company

银城中路190号, 浦东新区, 上海, 200120, CN
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 800 and 849

China Pacific Life Insurance Co., Ltd (CPIC Life in short) was formed on the basis of life insurance business of China Pacific Insurance Co., Ltd., which was founded on May 13th 1991, and is held by CPIC Group. The company was incorporated in November 11, 2001, headquartered in Shanghai and registered capital totaling RMB 5.1 billion. In 2008, the premium income of the company reached RMB 66.092 billion, ranking 3rd in China life insurance market with a share of 9.0%, according to data published by CIRC. The company achieved a profit of RMB 2.104 billion this year with net profit of RMB 2.904 million.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 24,967
Subsidiaries: 0
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/china-pacific-insurance-company.jpeg
China Pacific Insurance Company
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
China Pacific Insurance Company
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 China Pacific Insurance Company in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for IAG in 2025.

Incident History — China Pacific Insurance Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China Pacific Insurance Company 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/china-pacific-insurance-company.jpeg
China Pacific Insurance Company
Incidents

No Incident

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

No Incident

FAQ

China Pacific Insurance Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to IAG company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, IAG company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to China Pacific Insurance Company company.

In the current year, IAG company and China Pacific Insurance Company company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither IAG company nor China Pacific Insurance Company company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither IAG company nor China Pacific Insurance Company company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither IAG company nor China Pacific Insurance Company company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company company nor IAG company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company nor IAG holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

IAG company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to China Pacific Insurance Company company.

China Pacific Insurance Company company employs more people globally than IAG company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company nor IAG holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company nor IAG holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company nor IAG holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company nor IAG holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company nor IAG holds HIPAA certification.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company 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