Comparison Overview

Generali

VS

Aflac

Generali

IT
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

Generali enables people to shape a safer and more sustainable future by caring for their lives and dreams. The Generali Group is one of the most significant players in the global insurance and financial products market. The Group is leader in Italy and Assicurazioni Generali, founded in 1831 in Trieste, is the Group's Parent and principal operating Company. Characterised from the very outset by a strong international outlook and now present in more than 50 Countries, Generali has consolidated its position among the world's leading insurance operators, with significant market shares in western Europe - its main area of activity - and particularly in Germany, France, Austria, Spain, Switzerland and Central and Eastern Europe. The Group has - over the last decade - set up offices in the main markets of the Far East, among which India and China; in particular, in China, just after few years of operation, it has become the leader among the insurance companies with foreign equity interests. Key figures: - We have more than 190 years of experience - We are present in more than 50 countries - We have over 87,000 employees worldwide - We manage over €863 billion assets - We had a total premium income of € 95.2 billion in 2024 - We are among the 50 smartest companies in the world according to MIT Technology Review - We are ranked 1st in Italy and 9th globally in the Top Companies for Women 2024 by Forbes and Statista

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 56,773
Subsidiaries: 19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Aflac

1932 Wynnton Rd, Columbus, 31999, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 0 and 549

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 one, you can provide your employees with the kind of benefits they’d expect from a bigger company, helping your business stand out from the crowd. Hundreds of thousands of businesses across the United States already make Aflac available to their employees—at no direct cost to their company. Choose from a wide range of products that can help your employees with health events—from accidents, to disability, to cancer, to life insurance. Your employees enjoy benefits from Aflac, all employee-paid. Please check out Aflac.com for more information.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 18,043
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/generali.jpeg
Generali
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/aflac.jpeg
Aflac
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
Generali
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Aflac
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Generali in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

Aflac has 57.08% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Generali cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Aflac cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/generali.jpeg
Generali
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2022
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/aflac.jpeg
Aflac
Incidents

Date Detected: 1/2026
Type:Cyber Attack
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 12/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Social Engineering, Insider Threat (Prior Embezzlement), Physical Theft (Evidence Seizure)
Motivation: Financial Gain, Fraudulent Insurance Claims, Theft of Retirement Funds
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Generali company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Aflac company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Aflac company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Generali company.

In the current year, Aflac company has reported more cyber incidents than Generali company.

Neither Aflac company nor Generali company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Aflac company and Generali company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Aflac company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Generali company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Generali company nor Aflac company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Generali nor Aflac holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Generali company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Aflac company.

Generali company employs more people globally than Aflac company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Generali nor Aflac holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Generali nor Aflac holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Generali nor Aflac holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Generali nor Aflac holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Generali nor Aflac holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Generali nor Aflac 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