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

Comparison Overview

Progressive Independent AgentsProgressive Independent Agents
VS
Marsh RiskMarsh Risk
Progressive Independent Agents

Progressive Independent Agents

N/A

Last Update: 03/04/2026

View Profile

Independent agents have been integral to our success since our founding in 1937, and investing in the channel is a long-term, strategic priority for Progressive. We’re proud to serve more than 40,000 independent agents as we work to become their #1 choice and destinatio...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:3
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
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
Progressive Independent Agents

Progressive Independent Agents

-
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)

Progressive Independent Agents has 32.43% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Marsh Risk in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Progressive Independent Agents (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Progressive Independent Agents 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...
Progressive Independent Agents

Progressive Independent Agents

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
PRO1771972264
Marsh Risk

Marsh Risk

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2