Comparison Overview

Lockton

VS

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Lockton

Global, US
Last Update: 2026-01-17
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

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Natraj, None, Mumbai, Maharshtra, IN, 400069
Last Update: 2026-01-17
Between 750 and 799

SBI Life Insurance (‘SBI Life’ / ‘The Company’), one of the most trusted life insurance companies in India, was incorporated in October 2000 and is registered with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) in March 2001. Serving millions of families across India, SBI Life’s diverse range of products caters to individuals as well as group customers through Protection, Pension, Savings and Health solutions. Driven by ‘Customer-First’ approach, SBI Life places great emphasis on maintaining world class operating efficiency and providing hassle-free claim settlement experience to its customers by following high ethical standards of service. Additionally, SBI Life is committed to enhance digital experiences for its customers, distributors and employees alike. SBI Life strives to make insurance accessible to all, with its extensive presence across the country through its 1,110 offices, 26,355 employees, a large and productive network of about 240,304 agents, 60 corporate agents and 13 bancassurance partners with more than 41,000 partner branches, 141 brokers and other insurance marketing firms. In addition to doing what’s right for the customers, the company is also committed to provide a healthy and flexible work environment for its employees to excel personally and professionally. SBI Life strongly encourages a culture of giving back to the society and has made substantial contribution in the areas of child education, healthcare, disaster relief and environmental upgrade. In 2024-25, the Company touched over 50,000 direct beneficiaries through various CSR interventions Listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange ('BSE') and the National Stock Exchange ('NSE'), the company has an authorized capital of Rs. 20.0 billion and a paid-up capital of Rs. 10.0 billion. The AuM is Rs.4,480.4 billion. For more information, please visit our website—www.sbilife.co.in. (Numbers & data mentioned above are for the year ended March 31, 2025)

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 23,263
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/sbi-life-insurance-co--ltd-.jpeg
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
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
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Lockton in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in 2026.

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

Lockton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 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/sbi-life-insurance-co--ltd-.jpeg
SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 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 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. company has not reported any.

In the current year, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. company and Lockton company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. company nor Lockton company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Lockton company has disclosed at least one data breach, while the other SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. company nor Lockton company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Lockton company nor SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Lockton nor SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Lockton company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. company.

SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. company employs more people globally than Lockton company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Lockton nor SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Lockton nor SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Lockton nor SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Lockton nor SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Lockton nor SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Lockton nor SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 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