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

Comparison Overview

Liberty Mutual InsuranceLiberty Mutual Insurance
VS
Marsh RiskMarsh Risk
Liberty Mutual Insurance

Liberty Mutual Insurance

175 Berkeley Street, Boston, 02116, US

Last Update: 13/09/2026

View Profile
698/1000Weak

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 c...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:37,904
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2
Marsh Risk

Marsh Risk

1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, US, 10036

Last Update: 08/09/2026

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

We help our clients and colleagues grow — and our communities thrive — by protecting and promoting possibility. We seek better ways to manage risk and define more effective paths to the right outcome. We go beyond risk to rewards for our clients, our company, our collea...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:26,578
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Liberty Mutual Insurance

Liberty Mutual Insurance

-
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
Marsh Risk

Marsh Risk

-
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)

Liberty Mutual Insurance has 36.71% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marsh Risk in 2026.

Incidents

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

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

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

Incident History - Marsh Risk (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Marsh Risk 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...
Liberty Mutual Insurance

Liberty Mutual Insurance

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
LIB1779359744
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIB001072625
Marsh Risk

Marsh Risk

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-89322
SUMMARY

Vault and Vault Enterprise did not consistently evaluate ACL policies against the canonical form of resource and policy names. This may allow an authenticated user with delegated permissions to bypass an explicit deny restriction and access a protected resource or assign a denied policy, potentially leading to privilege escalation. This vulnerability (CVE-2026-89322) is fixed in Vault Community Edition 2.1.2, and Vault Enterprise 2.1.2, 1.21.12, 1.20.17, and 1.19.23.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.2)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.2
CVE-2026-107314
SUMMARY

pgjdbc, the PostgreSQL JDBC Driver, versions 42.7.11 through 42.7.13 enforce no restriction when the requireAuth connection property excludes all six authentication methods the driver knows, for example requireAuth=!password,!md5,!gss,!sspi,!scram-sha-256,!none. The driver then accepts any method the server asks for, including cleartext password authentication. A value without a method in it, such as requireAuth=, (a single comma), is affected the same way. An attacker positioned between the application and its server can ask for cleartext password authentication and receive the database password. A positive list such as requireAuth=scram-sha-256, and a partial exclusion such as requireAuth=!password,!md5, are enforced correctly. The property has no default value, so a deployment that does not set it is not affected. 42.7.14 fixes the problem: such a connection is refused with SQLState 08004, and a value without a method in it is rejected as invalid.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107285
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, a proxied ws request is carried through CONNECT, but NettyRequestFactory.newNettyRequest and requestUri decide whether to attach proxy authentication and an absolute-form target only from whether the URI is secure. Because ws is not marked secure, the tunneled WebSocket upgrade sent to the origin includes the proxy's Proxy-Authorization value. Basic credentials are directly recoverable and Digest responses can be replayed or cracked offline. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107284
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, WebSocketHandler.upgrade aborts a handshake whose Sec-WebSocket-Accept value is missing or invalid but continues into pipeline installation and onOpen delivery. Frames coalesced with the invalid 101 response can be decoded and delivered from a peer that did not prove the handshake, although the request future fails and the channel closes. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-107283
SUMMARY

The AsyncHttpClient (AHC) library allows Java applications to easily execute HTTP requests and asynchronously process HTTP responses. Prior to 3.0.12 and 2.16.1, Realm.Builder generates the HTTP Digest client nonce with ThreadLocalRandom rather than a cryptographically secure random source. Digest relies on an unpredictable cnonce to resist chosen-plaintext and credential precomputation attacks, so an observer able to infer generator state can reduce the protection of the authentication exchange. This issue is fixed in versions 3.0.12 and 2.16.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-07
UPDATED
Date2026-10-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 3.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 3.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2