Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

OpenLoopOpenLoop
VS
The Cigna GroupThe Cigna Group
OpenLoop

OpenLoop

317 6th Ave, Des Moines, 50309, US

Last Update: 26/07/2026

View Profile
Between 600 and 649
https://openloophealth.com
606/1000Poor

OpenLoop is the nation’s top white-label digital health infrastructure provider, powering virtual care delivery for healthcare organizations, employers, retailers, and consumer brands. We make it simple to launch and scale virtual care by delivering the complete clinica...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:599
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1
The Cigna Group

The Cigna Group

900 Cottage Grove Rd, Bloomfield, 06002, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
746/1000Moderate

The Cigna Group is a global health company committed to creating a better future built on the vitality of every individual and every community. We relentlessly challenge ourselves to partner and innovate solutions for better health. The Cigna Group includes products a...

NAICS:62
NAICS Definition:Health Care and Social Assistance
Employees:21,598
Subsidiaries:19
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
OpenLoop

OpenLoop

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
The Cigna Group

The Cigna Group

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)

OpenLoop has 48.15% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for The Cigna Group in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - OpenLoop (X = Date, Y = Severity)

OpenLoop cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - The Cigna Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Cigna Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
OpenLoop

OpenLoop

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
OPE1785068638
🔒 Incident : Breach
OPE1773066666
The Cigna Group

The Cigna Group

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
THE1768961826
🔒 Incident : Breach
THE232072525

FAQ

Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between OpenLoop company and The Cigna Group company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between OpenLoop and The Cigna Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between OpenLoop and The Cigna Group, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - OpenLoop or The Cigna Group ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - OpenLoop or The Cigna Group ?
Between OpenLoop and The Cigna Group, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between OpenLoop and The Cigna Group, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-52880
SUMMARY

Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. Versions from 1.7.14 through 1.7.17 are vulnerable to a remotely triggerable denial of service. Both REST APIs are started with the Gin Engine.Run convenience method, which serves requests through Go's default HTTP server with no ReadHeaderTimeout, ReadTimeout, or MaxHeaderBytes configured. As a result, incoming connections that never complete their request headers are held open indefinitely. When a REST listener is reachable beyond localhost through the documented all-interface bind or a Docker port-publish deployment, a single unauthenticated client can open many slow-header connections and hold them open until server file descriptors are exhausted, preventing the API from accepting new connections. This renders the REST API unavailable to legitimate clients. This issue is fixed in version 1.7.18.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-52879
SUMMARY

Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. In versions 1.7.14 through 1.7.17, the direct-message ingress handler spawns a new goroutine for every incoming direct message before the processor-level antiflood layer makes any admission decision, with no semaphore, throttler, or bound on the number of concurrent in-flight spawns. Because the antiflood check runs inside the spawned goroutine rather than before it, a single connected peer can open a direct-send stream and send a stream of well-formed messages to force unbounded goroutine creation, where each goroutine allocates its own stack and holds a message reference until processing completes, adding scheduler and garbage-collection pressure faster than the runtime can drain it. This lets one peer degrade the node's availability and its ability to process legitimate traffic, resulting in a remotely triggerable denial of service. The issue is fixed in 1.7.18.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-52878
SUMMARY

Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. Versions 1.7.14 through 1.7.17 are vulnerable to a nil-pointer panic triggered by a protobuf Transaction whose embedded RawData sub-message is omitted. This omission causes RawData to decode to nil. Every transaction gossiped on the Klever-Go P2P network is decoded and validated synchronously inside the libp2p pubsub topic-validator callback, where txVersionChecker.CheckTxVersion dereferences tx.RawData.Version with no nil check. Because the libp2p pubsub callback, the underlying go-libp2p-pubsub validation worker, and Klever's own network/p2p layer install no recover(), the panic propagates and crashes the entire node process. The attacker payload is a 3-byte protobuf message; no validator key, stake, funds, or on-chain account is required, and delivery aimed at enough of the BLS validator set can halt block production, resulting in a chain halt. This issue has been fixed in version 1.7.18.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-49343
SUMMARY

Klever-Go is the Go implementation of the Klever blockchain protocol. In versions prior to 1.7.18, the account-data trie syncers are vulnerable to a resource-exhaustion flaw that leaks bounded throttler slots on error paths. In syncDataTrie() (in both userAccountsSyncer.go and kappAccountsSyncer.go), StartProcessing() reserves a slot from the NumGoRoutinesThrottler, but the corresponding EndProcessing() is only called on the success path and on the duplicate-root early return. As a result, any error from trie.NewTrie(), trie.NewTrieSyncer(), or trieSyncer.StartSyncing() (including the network-dependent timeout path) permanently consumes one slot for the lifetime of the throttler. An attacker who can repeatedly cause trie-node sync failures or timeouts during bootstrap can exhaust the bounded throttler, after which further account-data trie syncs stop making progress and SyncAccounts() returns a timeout. Because epoch bootstrap in syncUserAccountsState() and syncKappAccountsState() aborts on any such error, this causes bootstrap to fail, a core availability issue affecting fresh, restarting, or resyncing nodes and validators. This issue is fixed in version 1.7.18.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-48122
SUMMARY

Ruby LSP is an implementation of the language server protocol for Ruby. Several workspace-level settings in the Ruby LSP VS Code extension prior to version 0.10.4 could override the path to the Ruby executable, the version manager executables, or the Bundler `Gemfile` used at startup. A malicious repository containing a `.vscode/settings.json` could set these values to attacker-controlled targets. Opening and trusting the repository would then execute code with the privileges of the developer. The Ruby LSP gem and clients of the language server in other editors are not affected. Version 0.10.4 of the Ruby LSP VS Code extension fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-07
UPDATED
Date2026-08-07
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.4
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA