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
Brown & BrownBrown & Brown
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
Brown & Brown

Brown & Brown

300 N Beach St, Daytona Beach, 32114, US

Last Update: 05/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.bbrown.com
796/1000Fair

Brown & Brown delivers risk management solutions to help protect and preserve what our customers value most. Our two business segments, Retail and Specialty Distribution, offer businesses and individuals a wide range of insurance solutions. We are one of the insurance ...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:10,592
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Brown & Brown

Brown & Brown

-
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)

No incidents recorded for Brown & Brown in 2026.

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 - Brown & Brown (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brown & Brown 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...
Lawyer's Protector Plan®

Lawyer's Protector Plan®

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Brown & Brown

Brown & Brown

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-93740
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. Affected is the function formWlEncrypt of the file /boafrm/formWlEncrypt. The manipulation of the argument submit-url leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS2
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93739
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was determined in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This impacts the function formWlAc of the file /boafrm/formWlAc. Executing a manipulation of the argument submit-url can lead to buffer overflow. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-75885
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in the OpenShift console. Unauthenticated access to the `/api/devfile/` and `/api/devfile/samples/` endpoints allows a remote attacker to send crafted devfile payloads. This can lead to Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF), where the console pod makes requests to internal services and reflects partial responses to the attacker. Additionally, by sending repeated large requests without a specified content length, an attacker can cause unbounded memory growth, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
IMPACT SCORE
4.7
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-93894
SUMMARY

In Vinyl Cache before 9.0,2, workspace buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the .upper() and .lower() string type methods of VCL. This can be used as a remote denial of service (DoS) vector to make the child process segfault or assert, and then restart. Effectively exploiting this vulnerability requires prior knowledge about the VCL in use and the ability to craft a request that contains a string that is long enough to fill the remaining workspace at the call site while staying under the different request size limits (http_req_size, http_req_hdr_len, etc.).

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.3
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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:N/R:A/V:D/RE:L/U:Clear
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-93738
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was found in Totolink A3002MU Hh-B20211125.1046. This affects the function formSchedule of the file /boafrm/formSchedule. Performing a manipulation of the argument webpage results in buffer overflow. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been made public and could be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-18
UPDATED
Date2026-09-18
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1