Comparison Overview

Highmark Insurance

VS

Apex Benefits

Highmark Insurance

None
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 800 and 849

At Highmark Insurance, we know that different people will need a different type of product. In an effort to be able to serve customers of all income ranges, we offer a multitude of insurance products. For those customers who are practicing professionals, we offer professional liability options. Likewise, we offer a wide range of personal and real property insurance options. Whether you need to insure a car, a boat, a home or your business, we have a policy that can work for you. We offer other types of products, as well. For example, if you have worked hard to build a business, we have policies that can help you protect the business from unforeseen events. Likewise, we offer commercial insurance for those customers with strong commercial interests. No matter what your need may be, at Highmark Insurance we have a product that can suit you. You’ve worked hard to build your dreams, now let us work hard to protect them.

NAICS: 52421
NAICS Definition: Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Employees: 10
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Apex Benefits

9400 Priority Way West Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46240, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Our team of insurance, health and pharmacy experts builds competitive and cost-effective employee benefits programs to help organizations attract the very best talent and cut overall costs. Apex was founded in 2003 by CEO John F. Gause. Today, as Indiana's largest advisory firm dedicated solely to employee benefits, we have deep industry experience and organizational leverage. We use this leverage while aggressively advocating to get our clients the greatest value possible for their benefits investments. Apex is a strong organization of team members with the expertise and passion to do what's in the best interest of our clients. We save our clients more on their benefits — so they can do more for their employees. Our Values: • Excellence • Empowerment • Integrity • Accountability • Community Our Promise: We help you get more value out of your benefits — so you can give more, be more and do more.

NAICS: 52421
NAICS Definition: Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Employees: 82
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/defaultcompany.jpeg
Highmark Insurance
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/apex-benefits-group-inc-.jpeg
Apex Benefits
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
Highmark Insurance
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Apex Benefits
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 Highmark Insurance in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for Apex Benefits in 2026.

Incident History — Highmark Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Highmark Insurance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Apex Benefits (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Apex Benefits cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/defaultcompany.jpeg
Highmark Insurance
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/apex-benefits-group-inc-.jpeg
Apex Benefits
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Highmark Insurance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Apex Benefits company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Apex Benefits company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Highmark Insurance company.

In the current year, Apex Benefits company and Highmark Insurance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Apex Benefits company nor Highmark Insurance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Apex Benefits company nor Highmark Insurance company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Apex Benefits company nor Highmark Insurance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Highmark Insurance company nor Apex Benefits company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Highmark Insurance nor Apex Benefits holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Highmark Insurance company nor Apex Benefits company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Apex Benefits company employs more people globally than Highmark Insurance company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance Agencies and Brokerages.

Neither Highmark Insurance nor Apex Benefits holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Highmark Insurance nor Apex Benefits holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Highmark Insurance nor Apex Benefits holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Highmark Insurance nor Apex Benefits holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Highmark Insurance nor Apex Benefits holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Highmark Insurance nor Apex Benefits 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