Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

HUB InternationalHUB International
VS
IntactIntact
HUB International

HUB International

300 North LaSalle, 17th Floor, Chicago, IL, US, 60654

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
757/1000Fair

Hi, we’re HUB. We advise businesses and individuals on how to reach their goals. When you partner with us, you’re at the center of a vast network of risk, insurance, employee benefits, retirement and wealth management specialists that bring clarity to a changing world ...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:16,164
Subsidiaries:24
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Intact

Intact

700 University Avenue, Toronto, M5G 0A1, CA

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile

We created a purpose-driven company based on Values and a belief that insurance is about people, not things. This is the foundation on which we have built Intact and it lives every day through our purpose, Values, what we aim to achieve and how. ___ Nous sommes là pour...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:20,853
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
HUB International

HUB International

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Intact

Intact

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HUB International in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Intact in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - HUB International (X = Date, Y = Severity)

HUB International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Intact (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Intact cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
HUB International

HUB International

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
HUB752072525
Intact

Intact

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between HUB International company and Intact company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between HUB International and Intact, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between HUB International and Intact, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - HUB International or Intact ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - HUB International or Intact ?
Between HUB International and Intact, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between HUB International and Intact, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-44654
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, a shared-agent editor can delete file records through `DELETE /api/files` that the owner has reused across multiple agents. The deletion removes the file globally — not just from the shared agent — breaking the owner's other private agents that reference the same `file_id`. The private agent retains a stale `file_id` reference that no longer resolves. A shared-agent editor can destroy files that the owner uses across multiple agents. The owner's private agents — which the attacker has no access to — break silently with stale `file_id` references. This is a cross-agent integrity violation: editing access to one agent should not affect another. Version 0.8.4 contains a patch.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-44653
SUMMARY

LibreChat is an enhanced ChatGPT clone that supports multiple AI providers. In versions up to and including 0.8.3, users with only `VIEW` access to an MCP server can retrieve the server's decrypted admin-managed secrets through `GET /api/mcp/servers` and `GET /api/mcp/servers/:serverName`. The returned config includes plaintext values for `apiKey.key` and `oauth.client_secret`. This allows viewers of a shared MCP server to exfiltrate the underlying provider credentials. Version 0.8..4 contains a patch. Other remediations include: never returning decrypted admin-managed secrets to non-owners; redacting apiKey.key and oauth.client_secret from all API responses consider returning only boolean presence indicators for secrets, similar to the auth-values route pattern; and, if owners need to edit configs without re-entering secrets, preserving secrets server-side and returning placeholders instead of plaintext.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-42507
SUMMARY

When returning errors, functions in the net/textproto package would include its input as part of the error. This might allow an attacker to inject misleading content to errors that are printed or logged.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-42504
SUMMARY

Decoding a maliciously-crafted MIME header containing many invalid encoded-words can consume excessive CPU.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-41412
SUMMARY

alf.io is an open source ticket reservation system for conferences, trade shows, workshops, and meetups. Prior to version 2.0-M5-2606, the alf.io extension sandbox injects a fully-functional HTTP client (`simpleHttpClient`) into every extension script's scope. The `postFileAndSaveResponse()` method accepts an arbitrary filesystem path as its `file` parameter and reads the file contents using `new FileInputStream(file)` with no path validation, directory restriction, or allowlist. A malicious extension script can read any file accessible to the JVM process user and exfiltrate it to an attacker-controlled server via HTTP POST. Version 2.0-M5-2606 patches the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-06-02
UPDATED
Date2026-06-02
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2