Comparison Overview

Highmark

VS

Rosgosstrakh

Highmark

120 5th Ave, None, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US, 15222
Last Update: 2025-11-20
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

Rosgosstrakh

Kievskaya 7 Moscow, 121059, RU
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 750 and 799

RGS operates nationwide with over 2,500 branches, agencies and over 400 claims-handling offices covering every one of Russia's 86 regions - from Kaliningrad on the Baltic Sea in the West to Kamchatka on the Pacific Ocean in the Far East, and from Murmansk on the Barents Sea to Sochi (2014 Winter Olympics-site) on the Black Sea.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 10,001
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/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/rosgosstrakh.jpeg
Rosgosstrakh
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
Rosgosstrakh
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Highmark in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rosgosstrakh in 2025.

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

Highmark cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Rosgosstrakh 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/rosgosstrakh.jpeg
Rosgosstrakh
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

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

Highmark company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Rosgosstrakh company has not reported any.

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

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

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

Neither Rosgosstrakh company nor Highmark company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

Neither Highmark nor Rosgosstrakh holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

Neither Highmark nor Rosgosstrakh holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Highmark nor Rosgosstrakh holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Highmark nor Rosgosstrakh holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Highmark nor Rosgosstrakh holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Highmark nor Rosgosstrakh holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Highmark nor Rosgosstrakh holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H