Comparison Overview

Intact

VS

Allstate

Intact

700 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, CA, M5G 0A1
Last Update: 2025-12-09

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 aider les gens, les entreprises et la société à aller de l’avant dans les bons moments et à être résilients dans le moments difficiles. Notre entreprise est basée sur des valeurs et la conviction que l’assurance doit d’abord s’intéresser aux personnes, et non aux choses. C’est dans cette optique que nous avons bâti Intact et ça se reflète chaque jour dans notre raison d’être, nos valeurs, nos facteurs de succès en leadership, notre promesse aux employés, nos objectifs et notre stratégie.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 20,361
Subsidiaries: 6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Allstate

3100 Sanders Rd, None, Northbrook, Illinois, US, 60062
Last Update: 2025-12-11
Between 700 and 749

At Allstate, we're advocates for peace of mind and a good life. And that comes through in everything we do. From building innovative teams that truly understand our customers' needs, to challenging each other to develop our careers in a meaningful way, and finally to the incredible results we're able to achieve together. See how we’re creating a better future through innovation, advocacy, and empowering people and communities.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 58,885
Subsidiaries: 23
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
3
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/intact.jpeg
Intact
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/allstate.jpeg
Allstate
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
Intact
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Allstate
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Intact in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

Allstate has 25.0% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

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

Intact cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Allstate cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/intact.jpeg
Intact
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/allstate.jpeg
Allstate
Incidents

Date Detected: 10/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 1/2023
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 2/2020
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

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

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

In the current year, Allstate company has reported more cyber incidents than Intact company.

Neither Allstate company nor Intact company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Allstate company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Intact company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Allstate company nor Intact company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Intact company nor Allstate company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Intact nor Allstate holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Allstate company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Intact company.

Allstate company employs more people globally than Intact company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Intact nor Allstate holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Intact nor Allstate holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Intact nor Allstate holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Intact nor Allstate holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Intact nor Allstate holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Intact nor Allstate holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N