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

Comparison Overview

CyberverzekeringCyberverzekering
VS
HUB InternationalHUB International
Cyberverzekering

Cyberverzekering

N/A

Last Update: 16/12/2025

View Profile
769/1000Fair

De CyberPolis verzekert uw bedrijf tegen de gevolgen van hacking, systeeminbraak, verlies van data, gegevens diefstal en cyber-aanvallen.

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
HUB International

HUB International

300 North LaSalle, 17th Floor, Chicago, IL, US, 60654

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
757/1000Fair

Hi, we’re HUB. We advise businesses and individuals on how to reach their goals. When you partner with us, you’re at the center of a vast network of risk, insurance, employee benefits, retirement and wealth management specialists that bring clarity to a changing world ...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:16,164
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Cyberverzekering

Cyberverzekering

-
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
HUB International

HUB International

-
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 Cyberverzekering in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HUB International in 2026.

Incidents

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

Cyberverzekering 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 - HUB International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HUB International 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...
Cyberverzekering

Cyberverzekering

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
HUB International

HUB International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HUB752072525

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
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
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8