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

Comparison Overview

Lawyer's Protector Plan®Lawyer's Protector Plan®
VS
AflacAflac
Lawyer's Protector Plan®

Lawyer's Protector Plan®

655 North Franklin St., Tampa, 33602, US

Last Update: 25/02/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://www.lppinsurance.com
749/1000Moderate

The Lawyer’s Protector Plan® (LPP®) is a professional liability insurance program designed for small to mid-sized law firms. Since 1983 the LPP team has dedicated itself exclusively to underwriting, servicing and marketing lawyers’ professional liability insurance. In 2...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:5
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Aflac

Aflac

1932 Wynnton Rd, Columbus, 31999, US

Last Update: 04/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.aflac.com
376/1000Critical

Over 50 Million people worldwide have chosen Aflac because of our commitment to providing customers with the confidence that comes from knowing they have assistance in being prepared for whatever life may bring. With Aflac, whether you're a large business or a small o...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:17,986
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Lawyer's Protector Plan®

Lawyer's Protector Plan®

-
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
Aflac

Aflac

-
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 Lawyer's Protector Plan® in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

Aflac has 194.12% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Lawyer's Protector Plan® (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lawyer's Protector Plan® cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Aflac cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Lawyer's Protector Plan®

Lawyer's Protector Plan®

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Aflac

Aflac

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AFL1782816142
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ADOCONAFLSON1786027126
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AFLJAGNUC1768389868

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96680
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in ByteDance Coze Scraper Extension up to 2.0.2. Affected by this vulnerability is the function chrome.runtime.onMessageExternal.addListener of the file static/background/index.js of the component External Message Handler. The manipulation of the argument body.url/paginationConfig/xPathConfig/body.urls/xPaths results in missing authorization. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-96678
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in weiqingwen spring-boot-forum up to 538eecc3c6b85fdf0768ab4e8354b48c0c17d94f. Affected is the function validate of the file src/main/java/com/qingwenwei/util/NewUserFormValidator.java of the component Avatar Upload. The manipulation of the argument Username leads to path traversal. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. Continious delivery with rolling releases is used by this product. Therefore, no version details of affected nor updated releases are available. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-96676
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Fast FAC1900R 20190827_2.0.2. The impacted element is the function get_alias_name of the component uhttpd. Such manipulation leads to stack-based buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is publicly available and might be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-96606
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in LB-Link BL-CPE600EU 5.8.13. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file Mifi_config.bin of the component Configuration Backup Handler. The manipulation results in information disclosure. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 5.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-70125
SUMMARY

Microsoft Outlook Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-23
UPDATED
Date2026-09-23
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8