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

Comparison Overview

ERGO FörsäkringERGO Försäkring
VS
AflacAflac
ERGO Försäkring

ERGO Försäkring

Hantverkargatan 11b, Kungsholmen, Stockholm County, SE, 11221

Last Update: 27/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.erv.se
751/1000Fair

ERGO Försäkring är en försäkringsgivare som verkar genom varumärkena Europeiska ERV och DKV Hälsa. Europeiska ERV är en av de största aktörerna på den svenska marknaden för privat- och tjänsteresenärer samt för utlandsstationerade. DKV Hälsa är en av de främsta special...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:72
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Aflac

Aflac

1932 Wynnton Rd, Columbus, 31999, US

Last Update: 04/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.aflac.com
376/1000Critical

Over 50 Million people worldwide have chosen Aflac because of our commitment to providing customers with the confidence that comes from knowing they have assistance in being prepared for whatever life may bring. With Aflac, whether you're a large business or a small o...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:17,986
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ERGO Försäkring

ERGO Försäkring

-
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
Aflac

Aflac

-
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 ERGO Försäkring in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

Aflac has 197.03% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - ERGO Försäkring (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ERGO Försäkring 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 - Aflac (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Aflac 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...
ERGO Försäkring

ERGO Försäkring

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Aflac

Aflac

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AFL1782816142
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ADOCONAFLSON1786027126
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AFLJAGNUC1768389868

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-105761
SUMMARY

Dify is an open-source LLM app development platform. Prior to 1.16.0, the PUT /console/api/apps/<app_id>/server endpoint in api/controllers/console/app/mcp_server.py used AppMCPServerController.put() to retrieve an AppMCPServer by the client-supplied server ID without verifying that the server belonged to the requested application and tenant. An authenticated workspace member could therefore change another application's MCP server status and parameters, potentially redirecting data or disabling the service. This issue is fixed in version 1.16.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-105760
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, a caller can use the request-level media_io_kwargs field to select the GLMGA video backend and supply large values for the fps and max_frames options without a strict work ceiling. GLMGA constructs and deduplicates an attacker-sized pre-decode frame-index list, allowing a compact request and tiny valid video to consume disproportionate CPU time and memory in the shared media-loading executor. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105759
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, the Rust frontend's track_http_metrics middleware records the raw HTTP method token as a Prometheus label for requests reaching registered routes. An unauthenticated attacker can send unique arbitrary method tokens to unguarded routes such as /tokenize, causing Prometheus's Family::get_or_create function to permanently create counter and histogram label sets. Those label sets increase process memory usage and enlarge the /metrics response until the service or monitoring path is exhausted. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-105758
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. From 0.24.0 until 0.30.0, the Qwen2VLVideoBackend and Qwen3VLVideoBackend classes accept request-level values for the media_io_kwargs.video.max_frames and media_io_kwargs.video.fps fields without enforcing server-side ceilings. An unauthenticated caller can submit these values to the /tokenize endpoint, causing the sampler to decode every frame selected from attacker-controlled video input, consume disproportionate frontend memory, and potentially terminate the API process before scheduling or admission control. The Rust frontend is not affected because it rejects the media_io_kwargs field. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
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:N/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-105757
SUMMARY

vLLM is an inference and serving engine for large language models. Prior to 0.30.0, structured-output request failures can escape request-scoped validation and reach the EngineCore fatal-error path. A per-request backend mismatch can re-raise a grammar compilation exception, padding produced by the ngram_gpu speculative-decoding mode can pass a negative token to guidance validation, and the Rust frontend can admit empty structured-output values that the Python frontend rejects, allowing ordinary constrained-generation requests to terminate the shared engine. This issue is fixed in version 0.30.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-05
UPDATED
Date2026-10-05
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8