Comparison Overview

Marsh

VS

China Pacific Insurance Company

Marsh

1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, 10036, US
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799

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 colleagues, and the communities in which we serve. Marsh, a business of Marsh McLennan (NYSE: MMC), is the world’s top insurance broker and risk advisor. Marsh McLennan is a global leader in risk, strategy and people, advising clients in 130 countries across four businesses: Marsh, Guy Carpenter, Mercer and Oliver Wyman. With annual revenue of $23 billion and more than 85,000 colleagues, Marsh McLennan helps build the confidence to thrive through the power of perspective.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 27,488
Subsidiaries: 29
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

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/marsh.jpeg
Marsh
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
Marsh
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 Marsh in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China Pacific Insurance Company in 2025.

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

Marsh 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/marsh.jpeg
Marsh
Incidents

Date Detected: 04/2021
Type:Data Leak
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 6/2013
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 Marsh company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Marsh 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 Marsh company have not reported any cyber incidents.

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

Marsh 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 Marsh company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Marsh nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Marsh 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