Comparison Overview

Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life

VS

Long Term Care Insurance Advisors

Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life

15225 104 Avenue, Suite 103, Surrey, British Columbia, CA, V3R 6Y8
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Global Pacific Financial Services (GPFS) is a trusted Managing General Agency (MGA) committed to supporting independent financial advisors across Canada. For more than 49 years, we’ve partnered with advisors to help them deliver exceptional client outcomes while growing their practices with confidence. Our role goes beyond carrier access — we provide the business development tools, back-office support, and compliance framework that allow advisors to focus on what matters most: serving their clients. What we provide: • Access to Canada’s leading life insurance and investment carriers • Practice management resources and advisor training • Compliance and regulatory support (FINTRAC, provincial licensing, CLHIA standards) • Marketing tools, technology solutions, and business growth support • Succession planning and transition guidance At GPFS, we believe independence should never mean being unsupported. Our team works closely with advisors to ensure they have the resources, confidence, and freedom to succeed in today’s evolving financial services industry. Are you an advisor looking for a supportive MGA partnership? Contact us to learn how GPFS can help you grow your business.

NAICS: 52421
NAICS Definition: Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Employees: 19
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Long Term Care Insurance Advisors

15830 Venture Lane, Eden Prairie, MN, 55344, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

When you work with us, you NEVER pay us a fee and you CAN’T get the insurance for one penny less elsewhere. Specializing in Long Term Care Insurance, Hybrid Life Insurance, Executive Bonus Plans, Buy/Sell Agreements, Medicare Supplements, Medicaid Annuities, Life Insurance, Financial Planning, Disability Insurance, Short Term Medical. We specialize in understanding and evaluating insurance contracts. Knowing which contracts offer greater flexibility will work to your advantage, and most often don’t cost you anything extra. Just minor words like “calendar days” vs “service days” could cost you tens of thousands of dollars at claim time. Our objective is to make sure you get the best policies with the broadest coverage and at the very best price. Plus we provide you with free unrivaled support for life.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 9
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/globalpacific.jpeg
Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life
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/long.jpeg
Long Term Care Insurance Advisors
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
Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Long Term Care Insurance Advisors
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 Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Long Term Care Insurance Advisors in 2026.

Incident History — Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Long Term Care Insurance Advisors (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Long Term Care Insurance Advisors cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/globalpacific.jpeg
Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/long.jpeg
Long Term Care Insurance Advisors
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Long Term Care Insurance Advisors company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Long Term Care Insurance Advisors company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life company.

In the current year, Long Term Care Insurance Advisors company and Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Long Term Care Insurance Advisors company nor Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Long Term Care Insurance Advisors company nor Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Long Term Care Insurance Advisors company nor Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life company nor Long Term Care Insurance Advisors company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life nor Long Term Care Insurance Advisors holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life company nor Long Term Care Insurance Advisors company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life company employs more people globally than Long Term Care Insurance Advisors company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance Agencies and Brokerages.

Neither Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life nor Long Term Care Insurance Advisors holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life nor Long Term Care Insurance Advisors holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life nor Long Term Care Insurance Advisors holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life nor Long Term Care Insurance Advisors holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life nor Long Term Care Insurance Advisors holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Global Pacific Financial Services Ltd. | Insurance & Investments | MGA for Life nor Long Term Care Insurance Advisors 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