Comparison Overview

QBE Insurance

VS

Zurich Insurance

QBE Insurance

388 George Street, Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

QBE is an international insurer and reinsurer listed on the Australian Securities Exchange and headquartered in Sydney. We employ over 13,000 people in 26 countries. Leveraging our deep expertise and insights, QBE offers commercial, personal and specialty products and risk management solutions to help people and businesses manage risks, build strength and embrace change to their advantage. See our Terms of Use: qbe.co/2y7Ck4p See our Privacy Policy: qbe.co/3oa7gZB

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 13,832
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Zurich Insurance

Mythenquai 2, Zurich, Zurich, CH, 8002
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 800 and 849

Zurich Insurance Group (Zurich) is a leading global multi-line insurer founded more than 150 years ago, which has grown into a business serving more than 75 million customers in more than 200 countries and territories, while delivering industry-leading total shareholder returns. Our customers include individuals, small businesses, and mid-sized and large companies, as well as multinational corporations. The Group is headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, where it was founded in 1872. ONE TEAM, ONE PURPOSE We are Zurich, one global company, with one mission, one ambition, one set of shared values and a clear commitment to our stakeholders: our customers, our people, our shareholders, and the communities in which we live and work. You can find our community guidelines on: https://www.zurich.com/services/social-media

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 41,564
Subsidiaries: 30
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qbe.jpeg
QBE Insurance
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/zurich-insurance-company-ltd.jpeg
Zurich Insurance
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
QBE Insurance
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Zurich Insurance
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for QBE Insurance in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Zurich Insurance in 2025.

Incident History — QBE Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

QBE Insurance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Zurich Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Zurich Insurance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qbe.jpeg
QBE Insurance
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/zurich-insurance-company-ltd.jpeg
Zurich Insurance
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2021
Type:Data Leak
Motivation: Data Theft
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2018
Type:Breach
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Zurich Insurance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to QBE Insurance company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Zurich Insurance company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas QBE Insurance company has not reported any.

In the current year, Zurich Insurance company and QBE Insurance company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Zurich Insurance company nor QBE Insurance company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Zurich Insurance company has disclosed at least one data breach, while QBE Insurance company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Zurich Insurance company nor QBE Insurance company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither QBE Insurance company nor Zurich Insurance company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither QBE Insurance nor Zurich Insurance holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Zurich Insurance company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to QBE Insurance company.

Zurich Insurance company employs more people globally than QBE Insurance company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither QBE Insurance nor Zurich Insurance holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither QBE Insurance nor Zurich Insurance holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither QBE Insurance nor Zurich Insurance holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither QBE Insurance nor Zurich Insurance holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither QBE Insurance nor Zurich Insurance holds HIPAA certification.

Neither QBE Insurance nor Zurich Insurance holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Angular is a development platform for building mobile and desktop web applications using TypeScript/JavaScript and other languages. Prior to versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1, there is a XSRF token leakage via protocol-relative URLs in angular HTTP clients. The vulnerability is a Credential Leak by App Logic that leads to the unauthorized disclosure of the Cross-Site Request Forgery (XSRF) token to an attacker-controlled domain. Angular's HttpClient has a built-in XSRF protection mechanism that works by checking if a request URL starts with a protocol (http:// or https://) to determine if it is cross-origin. If the URL starts with protocol-relative URL (//), it is incorrectly treated as a same-origin request, and the XSRF token is automatically added to the X-XSRF-TOKEN header. This issue has been patched in versions 19.2.16, 20.3.14, and 21.0.1. A workaround for this issue involves avoiding using protocol-relative URLs (URLs starting with //) in HttpClient requests. All backend communication URLs should be hardcoded as relative paths (starting with a single /) or fully qualified, trusted absolute URLs.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 7.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:H/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Uncontrolled Recursion vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft deep ASN.1 structures that trigger unbounded recursive parsing. This leads to a Denial-of-Service (DoS) via stack exhaustion when parsing untrusted DER inputs. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 8.7
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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
Description

Forge (also called `node-forge`) is a native implementation of Transport Layer Security in JavaScript. An Integer Overflow vulnerability in node-forge versions 1.3.1 and below enables remote, unauthenticated attackers to craft ASN.1 structures containing OIDs with oversized arcs. These arcs may be decoded as smaller, trusted OIDs due to 32-bit bitwise truncation, enabling the bypass of downstream OID-based security decisions. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.2.

Risk Information
cvss4
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. Prior to versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2, working with large buffers in Lua scripts can lead to a stack overflow. Users of Lua rules and output scripts may be affected when working with large buffers. This includes a rule passing a large buffer to a Lua script. This issue has been patched in versions 7.0.13 and 8.0.2. A workaround for this issue involves disabling Lua rules and output scripts, or making sure limits, such as stream.depth.reassembly and HTTP response body limits (response-body-limit), are set to less than half the stack size.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In versions from 8.0.0 to before 8.0.2, a NULL dereference can occur when the entropy keyword is used in conjunction with base64_data. This issue has been patched in version 8.0.2. A workaround involves disabling rules that use entropy in conjunction with base64_data.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H