Comparison Overview

HDFC Life

VS

Travelers

HDFC Life

Lodha Excelus, 13th Floor,, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400011, IN
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

HDFC Life, one of India’s leading private life insurance companies, offers a range of individual and group insurance solutions. It is a joint venture between Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC), India’s leading housing finance institution and abrdn plc, the leading provider of financial services in the United Kingdom. HDFC Life’s product portfolio comprises solutions, which meet various customer needs such as Protection, Pension, Savings, Investment and Health. Customers have the added advantage of customizing the plans, by adding optional benefits called riders, at a nominal price. The company currently has 37 retail and 8 group products in its portfolio, along with 9 optional riders catering to the savings, investment, protection and retirement needs of customers. HDFC Life continues to have one of the widest reaches among new insurance companies with about 500 branches in India touching customers in over 900 cities and towns. The company has also established a liaison office in Dubai. HDFC Life has a strong presence in its existing markets with a strong base of Financial Consultants. For more information, please visit our website, www.hdfclife.com

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 43,856
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Travelers

485 Lexington Avenue, New York, 10017-2630, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 800 and 849

Travelers provides insurance coverage to protect the things that are important to you – your home, your car, your valuables and your business. We have been around for more than 170 years and have earned a reputation as one of the best property casualty insurers in the industry because we take care of our customers, agents, brokers, communities and each other. Every day, our approximately 30,000 employees and 13,500 independent agents and brokers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Ireland help provide peace of mind to our customers. Our expertise and focus on innovation have made us an industry leader and the only property casualty company in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Our history of advancements has propelled our company, and our industry, to deliver higher standards – from writing the first auto and space travel policies to founding the Travelers Institute for public policy and launching a hybrid car discount. By minimizing risk, preventing loss and helping our customers prepare for the unknown, Travelers’ comprehensive products and services enable individuals and businesses to feel confident and secure about the future. Please see our Social Media Guidelines: www.travelers.com/about-travelers/social-media/guidelines.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 36,296
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hdfc-life.jpeg
HDFC 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/travelers.jpeg
Travelers
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
HDFC Life
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Travelers
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HDFC Life in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Travelers in 2026.

Incident History — HDFC Life (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HDFC Life cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Travelers cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hdfc-life.jpeg
HDFC Life
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/travelers.jpeg
Travelers
Incidents

Date Detected: 4/2021
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Travelers company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas HDFC Life company has not reported any.

In the current year, Travelers company and HDFC Life company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Travelers company nor HDFC Life company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Travelers company has disclosed at least one data breach, while HDFC Life company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Travelers company nor HDFC Life company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither HDFC Life company nor Travelers company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither HDFC Life nor Travelers holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Travelers company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to HDFC Life company.

HDFC Life company employs more people globally than Travelers company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither HDFC Life nor Travelers holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither HDFC Life nor Travelers holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither HDFC Life nor Travelers holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither HDFC Life nor Travelers holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither HDFC Life nor Travelers holds HIPAA certification.

Neither HDFC Life nor Travelers 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