Comparison Overview

Liberty Mutual Insurance

VS

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Liberty Mutual Insurance

175 Berkeley Street, Boston, MA, US, 02116
Last Update: 2026-01-17

At Liberty Mutual, we believe progress happens when people feel secure. For more than 110 years we have helped people and businesses embrace today and confidently pursue tomorrow by providing protection for the unexpected and delivering it with care. A Fortune 100 company with more than 40,000 employees in 28 countries and economies, we are the ninth largest global property and casualty insurer and generate more than $50 billion in annual consolidated revenue. We operate through three strategic business units: US Retail Markets, providing auto, home, renters and other personal and small commercial lines property and casualty insurance to individuals and small businesses countrywide; Global Risk Solutions, delivering a full range of comprehensive commercial and specialty insurance, reinsurance and surety solutions to mid-size and large businesses worldwide; and Liberty Mutual Investments, deploying more than $100 billion of long-term capital globally across its integrated platform to drive economic growth, power innovation and secure Liberty Mutual’s promises. For more information, visit www.libertymutualinsurance.com.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 37,367
Subsidiaries: 18
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

120 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, 46204, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 600 and 649

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 our communities. Independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. ANTHEM is a registered trademark of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. Products vary by state. Learn more about our plans and legal information at www.anthem.com

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 Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/liberty-mutual-insurance.jpeg
Liberty Mutual Insurance
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/anthembcbs.jpeg
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
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
Liberty Mutual Insurance
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Liberty Mutual Insurance in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

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

Incident History — Liberty Mutual Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Liberty Mutual Insurance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

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

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/liberty-mutual-insurance.jpeg
Liberty Mutual Insurance
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2020
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Fraudulent auto insurance applications
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 06/2018
Type:Cyber Attack
Motivation: Financial Gain
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/anthembcbs.jpeg
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Incidents

Date Detected: 5/2025
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 5/2022
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 10/2021
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Liberty Mutual Insurance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company has faced a higher number of disclosed cyber incidents historically compared to Liberty Mutual Insurance company.

In the current year, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company and Liberty Mutual Insurance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company nor Liberty Mutual Insurance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Both Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company and Liberty Mutual Insurance company have disclosed experiencing at least one data breach.

Liberty Mutual Insurance company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance company nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Liberty Mutual Insurance company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company.

Liberty Mutual Insurance company employs more people globally than Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N