Comparison Overview

Lockton

VS

China Pacific Insurance Company

Lockton

Global, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 700 and 749

What makes Lockton stand apart is also what makes us better: independence. Our private ownership empowers our 13,100+ Associates doing business in over 140+ countries to focus solely on clients' risk and insurance needs. With expertise that reaches around the globe, we deliver the deep understanding needed to accomplish remarkable results.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 13,887
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1

China Pacific Insurance Company

银城中路190号, 浦东新区, 上海, 200120, CN
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 800 and 849

China Pacific Life Insurance Co., Ltd (CPIC Life in short) was formed on the basis of life insurance business of China Pacific Insurance Co., Ltd., which was founded on May 13th 1991, and is held by CPIC Group. The company was incorporated in November 11, 2001, headquartered in Shanghai and registered capital totaling RMB 5.1 billion. In 2008, the premium income of the company reached RMB 66.092 billion, ranking 3rd in China life insurance market with a share of 9.0%, according to data published by CIRC. The company achieved a profit of RMB 2.104 billion this year with net profit of RMB 2.904 million.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 24,967
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lockton-companies.jpeg
Lockton
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/china-pacific-insurance-company.jpeg
China Pacific Insurance Company
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
Lockton
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
China Pacific Insurance Company
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lockton in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China Pacific Insurance Company in 2025.

Incident History — Lockton (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Lockton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — China Pacific Insurance Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China Pacific Insurance Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/lockton-companies.jpeg
Lockton
Incidents

Date Detected: 11/2024
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Unauthorized Access
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-pacific-insurance-company.jpeg
China Pacific Insurance Company
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

China Pacific Insurance Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Lockton company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Lockton company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas China Pacific Insurance Company company has not reported any.

In the current year, China Pacific Insurance Company company and Lockton company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company company nor Lockton company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Lockton company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other China Pacific Insurance Company company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company company nor Lockton company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lockton company nor China Pacific Insurance Company company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lockton nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lockton company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to China Pacific Insurance Company company.

China Pacific Insurance Company company employs more people globally than Lockton company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Lockton nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lockton nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lockton nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lockton nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lockton nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lockton nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N