Comparison Overview

HUB International

VS

Tokio Marine Group

HUB International

300 North LaSalle, 17th Floor, Chicago, IL, US, 60654
Last Update: 2026-01-20

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 with tailored solutions and unrelenting advocacy. So you’re ready for tomorrow. About Hub International Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Hub International Limited (Hub) is a leading full-service global insurance broker providing property and casualty, life and health, employee benefits, investment and risk management products and services. From offices located throughout North America, Hub’s vast network of specialists provides peace of mind on what matters most by protecting clients through unrelenting advocacy and tailored insurance solutions. For more information, please visit hubinternational.com.

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

Tokio Marine Group

Tokyo, JP
Last Update: 2026-01-18
Between 750 and 799

Tokio Marine Group is a global insurance group that provides safety and security to customers worldwide. The Group consists of Tokio Marine Holdings and over 250 subsidiaries and 26 affiliates located in more than 480 cities in 46 countries and regions worldwide, operating extensively in the non-life (P&C) insurance business, life insurance business, and financial and general businesses. The insurance business is based upon the commitment to be there for our clients in their moment of need. It is a people’s business, therefore our people and the trust they engender is everything. We will continue to build a workforce that has been empowered and enabled to think and act from the customer's point of view and to live up to our corporate vision to be a Good Company.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 16,186
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/hub-international.jpeg
HUB International
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/tokio-marine-holdings.jpeg
Tokio Marine Group
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
HUB International
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Tokio Marine Group
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for HUB International in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tokio Marine Group in 2026.

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

HUB International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Tokio Marine Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tokio Marine Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/hub-international.jpeg
HUB International
Incidents

Date Detected: 12/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tokio-marine-holdings.jpeg
Tokio Marine Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2021
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Tokio Marine Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to HUB International company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

HUB International and Tokio Marine Group have experienced a similar number of publicly disclosed cyber incidents.

In the current year, Tokio Marine Group company and HUB International company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Tokio Marine Group company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while HUB International company has not reported such incidents publicly.

HUB International company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Tokio Marine Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Tokio Marine Group company nor HUB International company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither HUB International company nor Tokio Marine Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither HUB International nor Tokio Marine Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

HUB International company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Tokio Marine Group company.

Tokio Marine Group company employs more people globally than HUB International company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither HUB International nor Tokio Marine Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither HUB International nor Tokio Marine Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither HUB International nor Tokio Marine Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither HUB International nor Tokio Marine Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither HUB International nor Tokio Marine Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither HUB International nor Tokio Marine Group 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