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

Comparison Overview

EyeMed Vision CareEyeMed Vision Care
VS
AflacAflac
EyeMed Vision Care

EyeMed Vision Care

4000 Luxottica Place, Cincinnati, 45040, US

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.eyemed.com
702/1000Moderate

EyeMed Vision Care is a leader in vision insurance benefits. We deliver stand-out vision benefits centered around an outstanding member experience. EyeMed boasts America’s largest vision network with a diverse network of independent ODs, retail and online providers. No ...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:618
Subsidiaries:60
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Aflac

Aflac

1932 Wynnton Rd, Columbus, 31999, US

Last Update: 06/08/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.aflac.com
428/1000Critical

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
7
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
EyeMed Vision Care

EyeMed Vision Care

-
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 EyeMed Vision Care in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

Aflac has 191.26% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - EyeMed Vision Care (X = Date, Y = Severity)

EyeMed Vision Care cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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...
EyeMed Vision Care

EyeMed Vision Care

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
EYE4802448100725
Aflac

Aflac

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

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-19374
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-19373
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19372
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-19371
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 1.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-12372
SUMMARY

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-09
UPDATED
Date2026-08-09
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2