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“ Lietuva„Compensa Vienna Insurance Group“ Lietuva
VS
MetLifeMetLife
„Compensa Vienna Insurance Group“ Lietuva

„Compensa Vienna Insurance Group“ Lietuva

Ukmergės g. 280 , Vilnius, LT

Last Update: 15/03/2026

View Profile
754/1000Fair

Verslo, kelionių, turto ir kitos draudimo paslaugos, kurias lanksčiai pritaikome kiekvieno kliento poreikiams, o pagalbą teikiame kiekviename žingsnyje. Vairuojate elektromobilį? 🚙 KASKO draudimas elektromobiliams Naudojate saulės energiją? 🌱 Žaliasis draudimas Sudar...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:481
Subsidiaries:44
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
MetLife

MetLife

200 Park Ave, New York, NY, US, 10166

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.metlife.com
666/1000Weak

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 twi...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:43,494
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
„Compensa Vienna Insurance Group“ Lietuva

„Compensa Vienna Insurance Group“ Lietuva

-
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
MetLife

MetLife

-
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“ Lietuva in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MetLife in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - „Compensa Vienna Insurance Group“ Lietuva (X = Date, Y = Severity)

„Compensa Vienna Insurance Group“ Lietuva 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 - MetLife (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MetLife 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“ Lietuva

„Compensa Vienna Insurance Group“ Lietuva

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MetLife

MetLife

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MET851032025
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET502072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET636072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44541
SUMMARY

Fides is an open-source privacy engineering platform. From version 2.33.0 to before version 2.84.5, there is a DOM-based XSS vulnerability in fides.js via the fides_description override. This issue has been patched in version 2.84.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-49141
SUMMARY

WACRM prior to commit 73041bf contain an authorization bypass vulnerability in the automation engine that allows authenticated attackers to access and modify contacts belonging to other tenants by supplying an arbitrary caller-controlled contact_id in the POST request body without tenant ownership verification. Attackers can exploit the service-role client that bypasses row-level security to modify victim contact fields including name, email, and company across tenant boundaries using only a known contact UUID.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-47345
SUMMARY

Namespace attributes are not encoded correctly during HTML serialization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-47344
SUMMARY

When ALLOW_INSECURE_RAW_TEXT is enabled, whitespace-variant closing tags (e.g., </style\t>) are not recognized by the sanitizer but accepted by browsers as valid end tags, allowing subsequent content to escape sanitization. This allows bypassing the cross-site scripting prevention mechanism of typo3/html-sanitizer before version 2.3.2.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-46484
SUMMARY

Headplane is a feature-complete Web UI for Headscale. Prior to versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3, Headplane was vulnerable to a path traversal / authorization bypass in the Headscale API client used by node and user rename operations. This issue has been patched in versions 0.6.3 and 0.7.0-beta.3.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-08
UPDATED
Date2026-06-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8