Comparison Overview

Marsh Risk

VS

China Pacific Insurance Company

Marsh Risk

1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, US, 10036
Last Update: 2026-01-22
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 Risk is a part of Marsh. Together with Mercer, Guy Carpenter, and Oliver Wyman, we help organizations build resilience and competitive advantages from every angle. With annual revenue over $24 billion and more than 90,000 colleagues in 130 countries, Marsh helps build the confidence to thrive through the power of perspective.

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

China Pacific Insurance Company

银城中路190号, 浦东新区, 200120, CN
Last Update: 2026-01-17
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: 24,963
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/marshrisk.jpeg
Marsh Risk
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 Risk
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 Risk in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China Pacific Insurance Company in 2026.

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

Marsh Risk 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/marshrisk.jpeg
Marsh Risk
Incidents

No Incident

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 Risk company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, China Pacific Insurance Company company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Marsh Risk company.

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

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

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company company nor Marsh Risk company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

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

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

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

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Marsh Risk company nor China Pacific Insurance Company company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

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

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

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

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

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

Neither Marsh Risk nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Marsh Risk nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Improper validation of specified type of input in M365 Copilot allows an unauthorized attacker to disclose information over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
Description

Improper access control in Azure Front Door (AFD) allows an unauthorized attacker to elevate privileges over a network.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.8
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Description

Azure Entra ID Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:N
Description

Moonraker is a Python web server providing API access to Klipper 3D printing firmware. In versions 0.9.3 and below, instances configured with the "ldap" component enabled are vulnerable to LDAP search filter injection techniques via the login endpoint. The 401 error response message can be used to determine whether or not a search was successful, allowing for brute force methods to discover LDAP entries on the server such as user IDs and user attributes. This issue has been fixed in version 0.10.0.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 2.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/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

Runtipi is a Docker-based, personal homeserver orchestrator that facilitates multiple services on a single server. Versions 3.7.0 and above allow an authenticated user to execute arbitrary system commands on the host server by injecting shell metacharacters into backup filenames. The BackupManager fails to sanitize the filenames of uploaded backups. The system persists user-uploaded files directly to the host filesystem using the raw originalname provided in the request. This allows an attacker to stage a file containing shell metacharacters (e.g., $(id).tar.gz) at a predictable path, which is later referenced during the restore process. The successful storage of the file is what allows the subsequent restore command to reference and execute it. This issue has been fixed in version 4.7.0.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.0
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H