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

Comparison Overview

ProAgProAg
VS
Marsh RiskMarsh Risk
ProAg

ProAg

N/A

Last Update: 12/03/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.proag.com
753/1000Fair

ProAg is proud of its almost century of experience as an agricultural risk management company and is committed to providing our agents and policyholders with excellent service and support for multiple peril crop, crop hail and named peril crop insurance products. We are...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:384
Subsidiaries:25
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Marsh Risk

Marsh Risk

1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, US, 10036

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.marsh.com
796/1000Fair

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 collea...

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

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
ProAg

ProAg

-
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
Marsh Risk

Marsh Risk

-
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 Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ProAg in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marsh Risk in 2026.

Incidents

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

ProAg cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Marsh Risk cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
ProAg

ProAg

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Marsh Risk

Marsh Risk

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-82592
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was detected in D-Link DIR-825M 1.1.8. This affects the function sub_46725C of the file /boafrm/formDiskFormat of the component Disk Formatting Handler Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument partition results in stack-based buffer overflow. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.9)
CVSS2
Base Score: 9.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.1
CVE-2026-82591
SUMMARY

A security vulnerability has been detected in Open Asset Import Library Assimp up to 6.0.2. The impacted element is the function MD5Importer::MakeDataUnique of the file code/AssetLib/MD5/MD5Loader.cpp. The manipulation of the argument iNewIndex leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack can only be performed from a local environment. The identifier of the patch is bf9dabb617c46e5133dac65cca6bff177917afcb. Applying a patch is the recommended action to fix this issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
AV:L/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-82590
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. The affected element is the function smf_nudm_sdm_handle_get of the file src/smf/nudm-handler.c of the component SMF. Executing a manipulation of the argument preemptCap can lead to reachable assertion. The attack may be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is sufficient to fix this issue. This patch is called 4554405f29bffd7562abedbee63484825bd90cd5. You should upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82589
SUMMARY

A security flaw has been discovered in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. Impacted is the function amf_namf_comm_handle_n1_n2_message_transfer of the file src/amf/namf-handler.c of the component N1-N2 Message Handler. Performing a manipulation of the argument N1N2MessageTransferReqData.n2InfoContainer.smInfo.n2InfoContent.ngapIeType results in denial of service. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is recommended to address this issue. The patch is named abf8a836564b966b5141110fc25ed413c4f17522. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-82588
SUMMARY

A vulnerability was identified in Open5GS up to 2.7.7. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file src/amf/namf-handler.c of the component Transfer Endpoint. Such manipulation leads to null pointer dereference. The attack can be launched remotely. Upgrading to version 2.8.0 is capable of addressing this issue. The name of the patch is abf8a836564b966b5141110fc25ed413c4f17522. Upgrading the affected component is advised.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-30
UPDATED
Date2026-08-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 4.0
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/I:N/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/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
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8