Comparison Overview

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

VS

Assurance Maladie

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, 20229, US
Last Update: 2026-01-16
Between 700 and 749

As a part of the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) serves as a leading law enforcement agency in securing our nation. We patrol our nation’s border, ensure traveler safety, keep harmful products out of our communities, and protect the lives of millions of Americans across the country. Join CBP today and make a difference! We are actively hiring dedicated individuals to safeguard America’s borders. Take advantage of our large recruitment bonuses and start your rewarding career in federal law enforcement. Apply now to be part of our mission to protect and serve.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 9,622
Subsidiaries: 34
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
13
Attack type number
5

Assurance Maladie

26, Avenue du Professeur André Lemierre, Paris, 75020, FR
Last Update: 2026-01-17

Travailler à l’Assurance Maladie, c’est donner une nouvelle dimension à votre métier et agir au quotidien pour la protection de notre système de santé. Participez à une grande diversité de projets dans un cadre bienveillant et soyez fier de contribuer à une mission essentielle : agir ensemble, protéger chacun. Depuis près de 80 ans, l'Assurance Maladie joue un rôle majeur au service de la solidarité nationale. Nous sommes convaincus que la clé de la pérennité du système de santé relève d'une responsabilité collective et réside dans l'implication forte de chacun de ses acteurs. Au sein de ce système, l'Assurance Maladie assume une triple mission : ⏺️ garantir un accès universel aux droits et permettre l'accès aux soins ⏺️ accompagner chacun dans la préservation de sa santé ⏺️ améliorer l'efficacité du système Toutes ses missions, l’Assurance Maladie les mène avec le souci d’assurer la meilleure qualité de service. Elle s’appuie pour cela sur un réseau de proximité qui couvre l’ensemble du territoire et l’engagement de plus de 80 000 collaborateurs qui agissent jour après jour à l’échelle départementale, régionale et nationale. Ensemble, au quotidien, ils font vivre ses valeurs d’universalité, de solidarité, de responsabilité et d’innovation.

NAICS: 92
NAICS Definition: Public Administration
Employees: 28,082
Subsidiaries: 70
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/customs-and-border-protection.jpeg
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
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/assurance-maladie.jpeg
Assurance Maladie
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
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Assurance Maladie
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has 43.82% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Assurance Maladie in 2026.

Incident History — U.S. Customs and Border Protection (X = Date, Y = Severity)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Assurance Maladie (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Assurance Maladie cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/customs-and-border-protection.jpeg
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Whistleblower Leak
Motivation: Accountability for law enforcement actions, reform of ICE and CBP
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS)
Motivation: Suppression of leaked data
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Attack Vector: Brute-force attacks, Password spraying, MFA fatigue (push bombing)
Motivation: Retaliation for U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, Financial gain (ransomware payments), Political/ideological (anti-Semitic or anti-Israel sentiment)
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/assurance-maladie.jpeg
Assurance Maladie
Incidents

Date Detected: 03/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Email Compromise
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 03/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Account Hacking
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Assurance Maladie company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to U.S. Customs and Border Protection company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Assurance Maladie company.

In the current year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection company has reported more cyber incidents than Assurance Maladie company.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Assurance Maladie company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Both Assurance Maladie company and U.S. Customs and Border Protection company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Assurance Maladie company has not reported such incidents publicly.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection company has disclosed at least one vulnerability, while Assurance Maladie company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection nor Assurance Maladie holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Assurance Maladie company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to U.S. Customs and Border Protection company.

Assurance Maladie company employs more people globally than U.S. Customs and Border Protection company, reflecting its scale as a Government Administration.

Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection nor Assurance Maladie holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection nor Assurance Maladie holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection nor Assurance Maladie holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection nor Assurance Maladie holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection nor Assurance Maladie holds HIPAA certification.

Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection nor Assurance Maladie 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