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

Comparison Overview

Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc.Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc.
VS
GallagherGallagher
Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc.

Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc.

None, None, Atlanta, GA, US, 30339

Last Update: 11/05/2026

View Profile
751/1000Fair

Since 2003, Sterling Risk Advisors continues to be one of the fastest growing privately held insurance brokerage firms in the Southeast. From our offices in Atlanta and Columbus Georgia, we have placed coverage in all 50 states through our extensive carrier representati...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:45
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Gallagher

Gallagher

2850 Golf Road, Rolling Meadows, 60008, US

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
771/1000Fair

Gallagher, a global insurance brokerage, risk management, and consulting firm, serves communities around the globe, helping clients address risk, protecting assets, and recovering from losses. The products and services we provide keep businesses and institutions running...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:46,421
Subsidiaries:22
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
4
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc.

Sterling Risk Advisors, 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
Gallagher

Gallagher

-
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 Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc. in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Gallagher in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Gallagher 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...
Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc.

Sterling Risk Advisors, Inc.

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Gallagher

Gallagher

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAL24413322
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAL849072625
🔒 Incident : Breach
GAL049072425

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/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
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
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
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: 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
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9