Comparison Overview

Sterling Benefits

VS

Brunswick Private Client

Sterling Benefits

None, None, Blue Bell, PA, US, 19422
Last Update: 2026-01-23
Between 750 and 799

Sterling Benefits is a premier employee benefits firm dedicated to providing tailored solutions for businesses of all sizes. With over 30 years of experience, we specialize in delivering innovative strategies, exceptional service, and comprehensive support to help our clients navigate the complexities of the benefits landscape. Our team of experts is committed to maintaining competitive pricing, ensuring regulatory compliance, and fostering long-term relationships built on trust and transparency.

NAICS: 52421
NAICS Definition: Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Employees: 4
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Brunswick Private Client

Cleveland, 44125, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23

As a third generation family-owned business, Brunswick Private Client takes a different approach for the unique families we serve. Our clients range from highly successful individuals and families, as well family offices to professional athletes, celebrities, and public figures. Although their backgrounds and stories are diverse, our clients all share one common goal = To protect their life’s work. Every client and family we serve receives our custom-tailored 5-step process, as we properly address the complexities and risks unique to each client. Our comprehensive partnership is a completely integrated approach toward personal risk management. Every step, from discovery to ongoing support is customized to address each client’s individual needs. We are so much more than a "broker" to our clients. Our hands-on concierge style adjusts as the needs of our clients change and evolve over their lifetime. Brunswick Private Client's growth over the last 50 years has been 100% referral based, recommendations from our current clients and through our complimentary P&C portfolio reviews in partnership with our HNW advisor network around the country. We take pride in going above and beyond for our clients to “Insure the world you love and everything in it!”™

NAICS: 52421
NAICS Definition: Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Employees: None
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sterlingben.jpeg
Sterling Benefits
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/brunswick-private-client.jpeg
Brunswick Private Client
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
Sterling Benefits
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Brunswick Private Client
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Agencies and Brokerages Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Sterling Benefits in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Agencies and Brokerages Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Brunswick Private Client in 2026.

Incident History — Sterling Benefits (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Sterling Benefits cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Brunswick Private Client (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Brunswick Private Client cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/sterlingben.jpeg
Sterling Benefits
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/brunswick-private-client.jpeg
Brunswick Private Client
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Brunswick Private Client company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Sterling Benefits company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, Brunswick Private Client company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Sterling Benefits company.

In the current year, Brunswick Private Client company and Sterling Benefits company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Brunswick Private Client company nor Sterling Benefits company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Brunswick Private Client company nor Sterling Benefits company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Brunswick Private Client company nor Sterling Benefits company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Sterling Benefits company nor Brunswick Private Client company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Sterling Benefits nor Brunswick Private Client holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Brunswick Private Client company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Sterling Benefits company.

Neither Sterling Benefits nor Brunswick Private Client holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Sterling Benefits nor Brunswick Private Client holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Sterling Benefits nor Brunswick Private Client holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Sterling Benefits nor Brunswick Private Client holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Sterling Benefits nor Brunswick Private Client holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Sterling Benefits nor Brunswick Private Client holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/backend-defaults provides the default implementations and setup for a standard Backstage backend app. Prior to versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0, the `FetchUrlReader` component, used by the catalog and other plugins to fetch content from URLs, followed HTTP redirects automatically. This allowed an attacker who controls a host listed in `backend.reading.allow` to redirect requests to internal or sensitive URLs that are not on the allowlist, bypassing the URL allowlist security control. This is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability that could allow access to internal resources, but it does not allow attackers to include additional request headers. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` version 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Restrict `backend.reading.allow` to only trusted hosts that you control and that do not issue redirects, ensure allowed hosts do not have open redirect vulnerabilities, and/or use network-level controls to block access from Backstage to sensitive internal endpoints.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/cli-common provides config loading functionality used by the backend and command line interface of Backstage. Prior to version 0.1.17, the `resolveSafeChildPath` utility function in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api`, which is used to prevent path traversal attacks, failed to properly validate symlink chains and dangling symlinks. An attacker could bypass the path validation via symlink chains (creating `link1 → link2 → /outside` where intermediate symlinks eventually resolve outside the allowed directory) and dangling symlinks (creating symlinks pointing to non-existent paths outside the base directory, which would later be created during file operations). This function is used by Scaffolder actions and other backend components to ensure file operations stay within designated directories. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-plugin-api` version 0.1.17. Users should upgrade to this version or later. Some workarounds are available. Run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access and/or restrict template creation to trusted users.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
Description

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals. Multiple Scaffolder actions and archive extraction utilities were vulnerable to symlink-based path traversal attacks. An attacker with access to create and execute Scaffolder templates could exploit symlinks to read arbitrary files via the `debug:log` action by creating a symlink pointing to sensitive files (e.g., `/etc/passwd`, configuration files, secrets); delete arbitrary files via the `fs:delete` action by creating symlinks pointing outside the workspace, and write files outside the workspace via archive extraction (tar/zip) containing malicious symlinks. This affects any Backstage deployment where users can create or execute Scaffolder templates. This vulnerability is fixed in `@backstage/backend-defaults` versions 0.12.2, 0.13.2, 0.14.1, and 0.15.0; `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-backend` versions 2.2.2, 3.0.2, and 3.1.1; and `@backstage/plugin-scaffolder-node` versions 0.11.2 and 0.12.3. Users should upgrade to these versions or later. Some workarounds are available. Follow the recommendation in the Backstage Threat Model to limit access to creating and updating templates, restrict who can create and execute Scaffolder templates using the permissions framework, audit existing templates for symlink usage, and/or run Backstage in a containerized environment with limited filesystem access.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 7.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
Description

FastAPI Api Key provides a backend-agnostic library that provides an API key system. Version 1.1.0 has a timing side-channel vulnerability in verify_key(). The method applied a random delay only on verification failures, allowing an attacker to statistically distinguish valid from invalid API keys by measuring response latencies. With enough repeated requests, an adversary could infer whether a key_id corresponds to a valid key, potentially accelerating brute-force or enumeration attacks. All users relying on verify_key() for API key authentication prior to the fix are affected. Users should upgrade to version 1.1.0 to receive a patch. The patch applies a uniform random delay (min_delay to max_delay) to all responses regardless of outcome, eliminating the timing correlation. Some workarounds are available. Add an application-level fixed delay or random jitter to all authentication responses (success and failure) before the fix is applied and/or use rate limiting to reduce the feasibility of statistical timing attacks.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 3.7
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
Description

The Flux Operator is a Kubernetes CRD controller that manages the lifecycle of CNCF Flux CD and the ControlPlane enterprise distribution. Starting in version 0.36.0 and prior to version 0.40.0, a privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Flux Operator Web UI authentication code that allows an attacker to bypass Kubernetes RBAC impersonation and execute API requests with the operator's service account privileges. In order to be vulnerable, cluster admins must configure the Flux Operator with an OIDC provider that issues tokens lacking the expected claims (e.g., `email`, `groups`), or configure custom CEL expressions that can evaluate to empty values. After OIDC token claims are processed through CEL expressions, there is no validation that the resulting `username` and `groups` values are non-empty. When both values are empty, the Kubernetes client-go library does not add impersonation headers to API requests, causing them to be executed with the flux-operator service account's credentials instead of the authenticated user's limited permissions. This can result in privilege escalation, data exposure, and/or information disclosure. Version 0.40.0 patches the issue.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.3
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N