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

Comparison Overview

RCI -Regional Care, IncRCI -Regional Care, Inc
VS
Munich ReMunich Re
RCI -Regional Care, Inc

RCI -Regional Care, Inc

905 W. 27th Street, None, Scottsbluff, NE, US, 69361

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 700 and 749
http://regionalcare.com
709/1000Moderate

Regional Care, Inc. (RCI) is one of the nation’s premier independent third-party administrators. We have continued to grow our business by offering unique products and delivering exemplary services to our clients and broker partners while managing health care costs effe...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:52
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Munich Re

Munich Re

Königinstrasse 107, Munich, 80802, DE

Last Update: 12/08/2026

View Profile
Between 800 and 849
http://www.munichre.com
808/1000Good

Munich Re is one of the world’s leading providers of reinsurance, primary insurance and insurance-related risk solutions. The group consists of the reinsurance and ERGO business segments, as well as the capital investment company MEAG. We are globally active and operate...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:15,187
Subsidiaries:16
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
RCI -Regional Care, Inc

RCI -Regional Care, Inc

-
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
Munich Re

Munich Re

-
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 RCI -Regional Care, Inc in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

Munich Re has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - RCI -Regional Care, Inc (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RCI -Regional Care, Inc cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Munich Re (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Munich Re 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...
RCI -Regional Care, Inc

RCI -Regional Care, Inc

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
REG940072725
Munich Re

Munich Re

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
MUN1786568796

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-81934
SUMMARY

Redis contains a use-after-free vulnerability in the 'tlsProcessPendingData()' function, which handles the TLS pending-data list if Redis is configured with TLS support. A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute arbitrary commands with the privileges of the Redis server. Fixed in Redis 8.2.9, 8.4.6, 8.6.6, 8.8.2, and 8.10.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.2
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-81931
SUMMARY

Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type in the product photo upload in Roskus Prospero Flow CRM before 5.16.0 allows an authenticated user holding the create product permission (routine Seller role) to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the application origin. The photo validation rule classifies the file only by its content (magic bytes) and rejects only a fixed list of PHP extensions, while ProductSaveController::save() names the stored file using the client-supplied extension and copies it into the public web root. A file that begins with an image header and carries an HTML extension passes validation, is stored under public/asset/upload/product/, and is served with a text/html content type, turning the upload into first-party stored script execution.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 4.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/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
CVE-2026-81893
SUMMARY

A flaw was found in gdk-pixbuf. When loading a specially crafted JPEG image containing chunked ICC profile markers, an error during ICC profile parsing can leave stale size metadata after the profile buffer is freed. A subsequent allocation in the same decode can cause an out-of-bounds write, potentially crashing the application. To exploit this flaw, an application using gdk-pixbuf must process the malicious JPEG image. Affected version >= 2.26.4

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 4.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 4.7
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
1
CVE-2026-81838
SUMMARY

A relative path traversal issue in the zip extraction functionality in AWS diagram-as-code (awsdac) in versions 0.10 through 0.23 can allow a third party to write arbitrary files to the local filesystem via crafted zip entry names containing path traversal sequences. This could allow the third party to perform inappropriate actions in the diagram bundle. To remediate this issue, users should upgrade to the version 0.24 or later.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/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
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-81834
SUMMARY

A weakness has been identified in RooCodeInc Roo-Code up to 3.51.1. Affected by this issue is the function ExecaTerminalProcess of the component README File Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to code injection. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. Multiple isses were reported to the vendor beforehand. They explain, that "they all apply to Roo Code, a project we no longer support - the repository was archived a while ago, and we don't encourage anyone to use it." This vulnerability only affects products that are no longer supported by the maintainer.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-08-27
UPDATED
Date2026-08-27
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.3)
CVSS2
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
CVSS4
Base Score: 2.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/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
3.4
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8