Comparison Overview

Manulife

VS

State Farm

Manulife

200 Bloor St E, Toronto, Ontario, M4W, CA
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 800 and 849

Manulife is a leading international financial services group that helps people make their decisions easier and lives better. With our global headquarters in Toronto, we operate as Manulife across our offices in Canada, Asia, and Europe, and primarily as John Hancock in the United States. We have more than 40,000 employees, over 116,000 agents serving ~34 million customers worldwide, and over $1.3 trillion in assets under management and administration. Visit www.Manulife.com to find out more. For Manulife terms of use, please visit http://bit.ly/SM_Terms

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 32,143
Subsidiaries: 2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

State Farm

One State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois, US, 61710
Last Update: 2025-11-20

At State Farm®, our mission is to help people manage the risks of everyday life, recover from the unexpected, and realize their dreams. We are passionate and driven to create possibilities, and we’re serious about helping customers by providing solutions for all of life’s moments. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.®

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 107,820
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/manulife-financial.jpeg
Manulife
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/state_farm.jpeg
State Farm
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
Manulife
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
State Farm
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Manulife in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for State Farm in 2025.

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

Manulife cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — State Farm (X = Date, Y = Severity)

State Farm cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/manulife-financial.jpeg
Manulife
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/state_farm.jpeg
State Farm
Incidents

Date Detected: 7/2012
Type:Breach
Attack Vector: Insider Misuse
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 3/2012
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Manulife company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to State Farm company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

State Farm company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Manulife company has not reported any.

In the current year, State Farm company and Manulife company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither State Farm company nor Manulife company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

State Farm company has disclosed at least one data breach, while Manulife company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither State Farm company nor Manulife company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Manulife company nor State Farm company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Manulife nor State Farm holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Manulife company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to State Farm company.

State Farm company employs more people globally than Manulife company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Manulife nor State Farm holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Manulife nor State Farm holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Manulife nor State Farm holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Manulife nor State Farm holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Manulife nor State Farm holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Manulife nor State Farm holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H