Comparison Overview

Liberty Mutual Insurance

VS

Helvetia Baloise Group

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

Helvetia Baloise Group

None
Last Update: 2026-01-20

Helvetia Baloise is the largest multi-line insurer in Switzerland and one of the leading insurance groups in Europe. Every day, more than 22,000 employees are committed to supporting around 13 million customers with insurance, pension and financial solutions – from private individuals and SMEs to international customer groups such as speciality and reinsurance. Headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, Helvetia Baloise is active in a total of eight European markets and in the global speciality markets, combining strong Swiss roots with a clear international orientation. Helvetia Baloise creates security and opens up opportunities, both now and in the future. Through profitable growth and business activities geared towards long-term stability, we facilitate individual solutions for customers, secure an attractive and reliable investment for our shareholders, promote strong partnerships and offer our employees attractive prospects. The Helvetia Baloise Holding Ltd share (HBAN) is traded on SIX Swiss Exchange.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 12,914
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

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/helvetia-baloise-group.jpeg
Helvetia Baloise Group
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
Helvetia Baloise Group
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 Helvetia Baloise Group 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 — Helvetia Baloise Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Helvetia Baloise Group 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/helvetia-baloise-group.jpeg
Helvetia Baloise Group
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Liberty Mutual Insurance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Helvetia Baloise Group company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Liberty Mutual Insurance company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Helvetia Baloise Group company has not reported any.

In the current year, Helvetia Baloise Group company and Liberty Mutual Insurance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Helvetia Baloise Group company nor Liberty Mutual Insurance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Liberty Mutual Insurance company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other Helvetia Baloise Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Liberty Mutual Insurance company has reported targeted cyberattacks, while Helvetia Baloise Group company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance company nor Helvetia Baloise Group company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Helvetia Baloise Group holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Liberty Mutual Insurance company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Helvetia Baloise Group company.

Liberty Mutual Insurance company employs more people globally than Helvetia Baloise Group company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Helvetia Baloise Group holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Helvetia Baloise Group holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Helvetia Baloise Group holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Helvetia Baloise Group holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Helvetia Baloise Group holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Liberty Mutual Insurance nor Helvetia Baloise Group 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