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

Comparison Overview

Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāleCompensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle
VS
HumanaHumana
Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle

Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle

Vienības gatve 87H, Rīga, undefined, LV-1004, LV

Last Update: 19/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.compensa.lv
751/1000Fair

Esam uzņēmums, kas vienmēr domā ilgtermiņā. Mūsu darbības pamatā ir godīgums un atklātība attiecībā pret katru sadarbības partneri un klientu. Compensa īpašnieka Vienna Insurance Group teju divsimt gadu ilgā pieredze apdrošināšanas tirgū ir pierādījums, ka ar savu attie...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:64
Subsidiaries:40
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Humana

Humana

500 W Main St, Louisville, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 550 and 599
https://careers.humana.com/
556/1000Very Poor

Humana will never ask, nor require a candidate to provide money for work equipment and network access during the application process. If you become aware of any instances where you as a candidate are asked to provide information and do not believe it is a legitimate req...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:46,895
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle

Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle

-
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
Humana

Humana

-
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 Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Humana in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Humana (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Humana 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...
Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle

Compensa Vienna Insurance Group ADB Latvijas filiāle

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Humana

Humana

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
HUMORAHEACEN1774290394
🔒 Incident : Breach
HUM143072625
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
HUM030090625

FAQ

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