Comparison Overview

China Pacific Insurance Company

VS

MetLife

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

MetLife

200 Park Ave, None, New York, NY, US, 10166
Last Update: 2025-11-20
Between 600 and 649

We live in a time of unprecedented change. A time when economies, regulations, and social safety nets are all in flux. Customers around the globe have told us they’re overwhelmed by the pace of change and are looking for a trusted partner to help them manage life’s twists and turns. MetLife is committed to being that partner. That’s why we’re transforming our business: Delivering greater value for the people we serve by becoming a simpler, more focused, and future-facing company. We’ll be introducing new ways to meet our customers’ evolving needs, with flexible products; simpler, more intuitive experiences and a range of new services. MetLife. Navigating life together. For customer service: https://www.metlife.com/support-and-manage/contact-us/ For social media notices: https://www.metlife.com/about-us/terms-and-conditions/social-media/ MetLife, Inc. (NYSE: MET), through its subsidiaries and affiliates (“MetLife”), is one of the world’s leading financial services companies, providing insurance, annuities, employee benefits and asset management to help its individual and institutional customers navigate their changing world. Founded in 1868, MetLife has operations in more than 40 markets globally and holds leading positions in the United States, Japan, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 42,313
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
6
Attack type number
2

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/metlife.jpeg
MetLife
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
MetLife
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)

MetLife has 49.25% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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 — MetLife (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MetLife 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/metlife.jpeg
MetLife
Incidents

Date Detected: 3/2025
Type:Ransomware
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 11/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Coding Transmission Error
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

MetLife company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas China Pacific Insurance Company company has not reported any.

In the current year, MetLife company has reported more cyber incidents than China Pacific Insurance Company company.

MetLife company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while China Pacific Insurance Company company has not reported such incidents publicly.

MetLife company has disclosed at least one data breach, while China Pacific Insurance Company company has not reported such incidents publicly.

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

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company nor MetLife holds HIPAA certification.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company nor MetLife 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