Comparison Overview

Fulcrum Risk Solutions

VS

DigitalBGA

Fulcrum Risk Solutions

132 Westpark Blvd, Columbia, South Carolina, 29210, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22

Fulcrum Risk Solutions is an independent, full-service brokerage firm dedicated to providing holistic risk management and insurance strategies to our clients. We foster organizational stability by implementing tailor-made population health management programs. By focusing on the physical and emotional wellbeing of your employees, we can help improve morale and drive down healthcare costs. Our consultative approach is founded on honest exchanges with our clients, and the relationships we build with them are at the heart of our business. We seek to make the complicated world of risk exposure simple so your organization can focus on doing what it does best.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 13
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

DigitalBGA

None
Last Update: 2025-12-26
Between 750 and 799

DigitalBGA is far from a conventional brokerage agency. Our sole mission is to empower you with expertise in online marketing, virtual sales, and business management. Whether you're an independent agent looking to transition from in-person to online sales or aiming to scale your digital life insurance business, our specialized team has got you covered. What Sets Us Apart? Dedicated Case Managers: We manage all your requirement gathering so you can focus on what matters—your business. Expert Digital Marketers: Our professionals ensure a seamless transition for agents to establish a robust online presence. Streamlined Digital Integration: Experience hassle-free data transfer and automation. Comprehensive Online Applications: Simplifying the application process to save you time. Fully Managed Carrier Drop Ticket System: We've got your back, ensuring a smooth end-to-end process. If you're a life insurance agent keen on leveraging the digital landscape to maximize your revenue, reach out to us today. We're here to help you succeed. We have: -Proactive Case Managers that do all requirement collection on your behalf -Digital Marketing Professionals to help agents get online efficiently -Full digital integrations, making data transfer easy -Full online applications -Fully supported carrier drop ticket system If you are a life insurance agent that is currently trying to generate income from online life insurance, give us a call today-we can help.

NAICS: 52421
NAICS Definition: Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Employees: 96
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/fulcrumrisksolutions.jpeg
Fulcrum Risk Solutions
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/digitalbga.jpeg
DigitalBGA
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
Fulcrum Risk Solutions
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
DigitalBGA
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 Fulcrum Risk Solutions in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for DigitalBGA in 2026.

Incident History — Fulcrum Risk Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Fulcrum Risk Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — DigitalBGA (X = Date, Y = Severity)

DigitalBGA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/fulcrumrisksolutions.jpeg
Fulcrum Risk Solutions
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/digitalbga.jpeg
DigitalBGA
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

DigitalBGA company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Fulcrum Risk Solutions company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, DigitalBGA company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Fulcrum Risk Solutions company.

In the current year, DigitalBGA company and Fulcrum Risk Solutions company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither DigitalBGA company nor Fulcrum Risk Solutions company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither DigitalBGA company nor Fulcrum Risk Solutions company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither DigitalBGA company nor Fulcrum Risk Solutions company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Fulcrum Risk Solutions company nor DigitalBGA company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Fulcrum Risk Solutions nor DigitalBGA holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Fulcrum Risk Solutions company nor DigitalBGA company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

DigitalBGA company employs more people globally than Fulcrum Risk Solutions company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance Agencies and Brokerages.

Neither Fulcrum Risk Solutions nor DigitalBGA holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Fulcrum Risk Solutions nor DigitalBGA holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Fulcrum Risk Solutions nor DigitalBGA holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Fulcrum Risk Solutions nor DigitalBGA holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Fulcrum Risk Solutions nor DigitalBGA holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Fulcrum Risk Solutions nor DigitalBGA 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