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
MapfreMapfre
WTW (formerly Liazon)

WTW (formerly Liazon)

199 Scott Street, Buffalo, 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:249
Subsidiaries:12
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Mapfre

Mapfre

Carretera de Pozuelo, 52, Majadahonda, Community of Madrid, ES, 28220

Last Update: 03/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.mapfre.com
789/1000Fair

At Mapfre, we’ve spent more than 90 years supporting people and businesses around the world, taking care of what matters most to them. We offer insurance, financial, and service solutions that evolve with you. Our experience and commitment, combined with a constant focu...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:37,331
Subsidiaries:4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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
Mapfre

Mapfre

-
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 Mapfre in 2026.

Incidents

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

WTW (formerly Liazon) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Mapfre 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...
WTW (formerly Liazon)

WTW (formerly Liazon)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Mapfre

Mapfre

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-16174
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified about a potential gap in Netskope Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) running on Windows systems. Successful exploitation of the gap could potentially allow a privileged user to send a crafted message to the EPDLP process port to trigger an integer overflow, leading to memory corruption. Successful exploitation would require the EPDLP module to be enabled in the client configuration, and that Memory Integrity is disabled. A successful exploit could potentially result in a denial-of-service, arbitrary code execution, or privilege escalation on the local machine.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-16172
SUMMARY

Netskope was notified of an out-of-bounds heap read affecting the Endpoint DLP (EPDLP) service of the Netskope Client. A local standard user could potentially send a specially crafted message that is not properly validated with a bounds check, likely crashing the kernel driver handler. Successful exploitation could potentially crash the EPDLP service, temporarily interrupting DLP enforcement. A successful exploit could potentially also reveal per-boot memory layout information to unauthorized users.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/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:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-87958
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 is vulnerable to a denial of service where a specific functionality on a Db2 server can be disabled by a privileged user under certain conditions.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86093
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an attacker with the ability to control or impersonate a DRDA server endpoint to execute arbitrary commands on Db2 clients due to a stack-based buffer overflow that improperly copies user-controlled data into a fixed-size stack buffer without bounds checking.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.6
CVE-2026-86087
SUMMARY

IBM Db2 11.5.0 through 11.5.9, and 12.1.0 through 12.1.5 could allow an authenticated user to send a specially crafted request to write arbitrary files on the system.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-10
UPDATED
Date2026-09-10
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8