Comparison Overview

Corporate Benefits Alliance

VS

WellCare Insurance Corp.

Corporate Benefits Alliance

23123 Ventura Blvd, Woodland Hills, California, 91364, US
Last Update: 2026-01-15

Corporate Benefits Alliance is a market leader in the quest to make healthcare costs and medical insurance financially transparent. Companies have a right to know where their healthcare dollars go, and the answer might surprise you. CBA has recently launched a NextGen Level Funded PPO plan that utilizes one of the nation's largest and most trusted PPO networks. The plan, ProVision has embedded a proprietary adjudication model for high-dollar facility claims that saves plan sponsors 25%, on average, of their total annual healthcare spend. Unlike the systemic problems inherent in reference-based pricing plans, CBA’s ProVision plan has a single point of access for all healthcare and no chance of balance billing to the employees. Basically, it’s the same plan as you have now, just 25% less than what you currently pay.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 8
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

WellCare Insurance Corp.

200 Town Centre Blvd, Markham, L3R 8H8, CA
Last Update: 2025-12-25

WellCare Insurance, headquartered in Markham, Ontario, Canada, is one of the leading insurance brokerage firms. We are committed to providing comprehensive insurance solutions and outstanding customer service, while also creating vast career development opportunities and generous benefits for our employees. By establishing long-term stable partnerships with insurance companies and underwriting teams, we continually strive to promote the healthy development of the insurance industry. Specialties Home Insurance, Auto Insurance, Business Insurance, Life Insurance, and Travel Insurance Head Office Unit 101, 200 Town Centre Boulevard, Markham, Ontario, Canada, L3R 8H8 Contact Us Tel: 905-234-6666 Email: [email protected]

NAICS: 52421
NAICS Definition: Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Employees: 43
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/corporatebenefitsauthority.jpeg
Corporate Benefits Alliance
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/wellcareinsurance.jpeg
WellCare Insurance Corp.
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
Corporate Benefits Alliance
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
WellCare Insurance Corp.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Agencies and Brokerages Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Corporate Benefits Alliance in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Agencies and Brokerages Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for WellCare Insurance Corp. in 2026.

Incident History — Corporate Benefits Alliance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Corporate Benefits Alliance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — WellCare Insurance Corp. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

WellCare Insurance Corp. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/corporatebenefitsauthority.jpeg
Corporate Benefits Alliance
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/wellcareinsurance.jpeg
WellCare Insurance Corp.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

WellCare Insurance Corp. company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Corporate Benefits Alliance company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, WellCare Insurance Corp. company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Corporate Benefits Alliance company.

In the current year, WellCare Insurance Corp. company and Corporate Benefits Alliance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither WellCare Insurance Corp. company nor Corporate Benefits Alliance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither WellCare Insurance Corp. company nor Corporate Benefits Alliance company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither WellCare Insurance Corp. company nor Corporate Benefits Alliance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Corporate Benefits Alliance company nor WellCare Insurance Corp. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Corporate Benefits Alliance nor WellCare Insurance Corp. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Corporate Benefits Alliance company nor WellCare Insurance Corp. company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

WellCare Insurance Corp. company employs more people globally than Corporate Benefits Alliance company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance Agencies and Brokerages.

Neither Corporate Benefits Alliance nor WellCare Insurance Corp. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Corporate Benefits Alliance nor WellCare Insurance Corp. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Corporate Benefits Alliance nor WellCare Insurance Corp. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Corporate Benefits Alliance nor WellCare Insurance Corp. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Corporate Benefits Alliance nor WellCare Insurance Corp. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Corporate Benefits Alliance nor WellCare Insurance Corp. holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N