Comparison Overview

Highmark

VS

Great Eastern

Highmark

120 5th Ave, None, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US, 15222
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 700 and 749

An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Highmark Inc., together with its Blue-branded affiliates, collectively comprise the fifth largest overall Blue Cross Blue Shield-affiliated organization in the country with approximately 7.1 million members in Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia and western and northeastern New York. The following entities, which serve the noted regions, are independent licensees of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association: Western and Northeastern PA: Highmark Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield; CPA/SEPA: Highmark Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Shield; Delaware: Highmark BCBSD Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield; West Virginia: Highmark West Virginia Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield; Western NY: Highmark Western and Northeastern New York Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield; Northeastern NY: Highmark Western and Northeastern New York Inc. d/b/a Highmark Blue Shield. All references to “Highmark” are to Highmark Inc. and/or to one or more of its affiliated Blue companies. We're proudly part of Highmark Health.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 7,568
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

Great Eastern

1 Pickering Street , Singapore, 048659, SG
Last Update: 2026-01-17

For 117 years, we have been helping customers across generations by protecting, preserving and growing what matters to them. As One Great Eastern Group today, we are enabling the goals of over 15.5 million customers by taking care of their needs across life, health, wealth and general insurance, consistently innovating to help them #ReachforGreat!

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 14,366
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/highmark.jpeg
Highmark
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/great-eastern-group.jpeg
Great Eastern
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
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Great Eastern
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Highmark in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Great Eastern in 2026.

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

Highmark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Great Eastern (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Great Eastern cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/highmark.jpeg
Highmark
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: External Hacking
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/great-eastern-group.jpeg
Great Eastern
Incidents

Date Detected: 02/2019
Type:Data Leak
Motivation: Financial and Political
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

Highmark and Great Eastern have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Great Eastern company and Highmark company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Great Eastern company nor Highmark company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Highmark company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Great Eastern company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Great Eastern company nor Highmark company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Highmark company nor Great Eastern company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Highmark nor Great Eastern holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Highmark company nor Great Eastern company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Great Eastern company employs more people globally than Highmark company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Highmark nor Great Eastern holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Highmark nor Great Eastern holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Highmark nor Great Eastern holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Highmark nor Great Eastern holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Highmark nor Great Eastern holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Highmark nor Great Eastern 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