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

Comparison Overview

WTW (formerly Liazon)WTW (formerly Liazon)
VS
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue ShieldAnthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
WTW (formerly Liazon)

WTW (formerly Liazon)

199 Scott Street, Buffalo, New York, 14204, US

Last Update: 06/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.wtwco.com
752/1000Fair

WTW (formerly Liazon) operates the industry-leading private benefits exchanges for businesses across the U.S. Distributed under the brand name Bright Choices® as well as several privately-labeled brands, Liazon exchanges are online benefits stores that allow employees t...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:208
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

120 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, 46204, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.anthem.com/
653/1000Weak

At Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield we understand our health connects us to each other. What we all do impacts those around us. So Anthem is dedicated to delivering better care to our members, providing greater value to our customers and helping improve the health of o...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:10,469
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
WTW (formerly Liazon)

WTW (formerly Liazon)

-
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
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

-
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 WTW (formerly Liazon) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - WTW (formerly Liazon) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

WTW (formerly Liazon) 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 - Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield 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...
WTW (formerly Liazon)

WTW (formerly Liazon)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ANT0192801112125
🔒 Incident : Breach
ANT451072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
ANT032090625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
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:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2