Comparison Overview

The Mahoney Group

VS

AFL Solutions collectives

The Mahoney Group

1835 South Extension Road, Mesa, AZ, 85210, US
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Confidence to Face Whatever Lies Ahead. The Mahoney Group has worked to give our clients just that since 1915. As one of the oldest and largest independent brokerages in the U.S., what sets us apart is our unique employee-owned structure, which allows us to align directly with your interests, not those of distant shareholders or Wall Street pressures. This alignment empowers us to focus solely on what matters most: your success and peace of mind. Our core offerings include not just coverage to protect your business, but comprehensive risk management and claims advocacy. And when it comes to Employee Benefits, we’re known for challenging the status quo. Our innovative team crafts modern group plans that not only appeal to your employees but also offer a strategic path to regaining control over your healthcare budget. We are, in short, more than an insurance brokerage – we are your ally in navigating life’s uncertainties, giving you the confidence needed to face the many challenges that lie ahead.

NAICS: 52421
NAICS Definition: Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Employees: 289
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

AFL Solutions collectives

1280 boulevard Lebourgneuf, bureau 630, Québec, QC, G2K 0H1, CA
Last Update: 2026-01-01
Between 750 and 799

AFL Groupe Financier est un cabinet de courtage en assurance et en services financiers qui a pour mission de mériter la confiance des conseillers financiers en utilisant son expertise pour faire la différence dans le développement de leurs entreprises de produits financiers. Intégrité, respect et engagement vers l'excellence, valeurs essentielles à la réalisation de sa mission, sont les lignes directrices qui sont au coeur des actions quotiennes de chacun des membre des membres qui le composent. Bâti grâce à une équipe d'experts dynamiques dans chacune des disciplines offertes à ses conseillers financiers, AFL Groupe Financier est reconnu depuis plus de 30 ans comme un agent général qui se démarque par ses relations humaines et ses services professionnels hors pairs. Ayant su conserver son ambiance familiale et sa passion pour le métier, l'entreprise est aujourd'hui au service de ses conseillers financiers dans toutes les régions du Québec.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 11
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-mahoney-group.jpeg
The Mahoney Group
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/afl-groupe-financier.jpeg
AFL Solutions collectives
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
The Mahoney Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
AFL Solutions collectives
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 The Mahoney Group in 2026.

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

No incidents recorded for AFL Solutions collectives in 2026.

Incident History — The Mahoney Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

The Mahoney Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — AFL Solutions collectives (X = Date, Y = Severity)

AFL Solutions collectives cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-mahoney-group.jpeg
The Mahoney Group
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/afl-groupe-financier.jpeg
AFL Solutions collectives
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

The Mahoney Group company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to AFL Solutions collectives company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, AFL Solutions collectives company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to The Mahoney Group company.

In the current year, AFL Solutions collectives company and The Mahoney Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither AFL Solutions collectives company nor The Mahoney Group company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither AFL Solutions collectives company nor The Mahoney Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither AFL Solutions collectives company nor The Mahoney Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither The Mahoney Group company nor AFL Solutions collectives company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither The Mahoney Group nor AFL Solutions collectives holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither The Mahoney Group company nor AFL Solutions collectives company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

The Mahoney Group company employs more people globally than AFL Solutions collectives company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance Agencies and Brokerages.

Neither The Mahoney Group nor AFL Solutions collectives holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither The Mahoney Group nor AFL Solutions collectives holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither The Mahoney Group nor AFL Solutions collectives holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither The Mahoney Group nor AFL Solutions collectives holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither The Mahoney Group nor AFL Solutions collectives holds HIPAA certification.

Neither The Mahoney Group nor AFL Solutions collectives 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