Comparison Overview

中国人民保险 PICC

VS

China Pacific Insurance Company

中国人民保险 PICC

清华西路28号, None, 海淀区, 北京市, CN, 100084
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

Founded in October 1949, The People’s Insurance Company (Group) of China is the first nation-wide insurance company in the People’s Republic of China and has developed into a leading large-scale integrated insurance financial group in the PRC, ranking 208th on the Global 500 (2014) published by the Fortune magazine. The Company is an investment holding company. The Company operates its property and casualty insurance business through PICC Property and Casualty Company.The Company operates its life and health insurance businesses through PICC Life Insurance Company and PICC Health Insurance Company , The Company centrally and professionally manages most of its insurance assets through PICC Asset Management Company and PICC Investment Holding which is a professional investment company specializing in real estate investments. The Company also carries out non-transactional businesses such as equity and debt investments in insurance and non-insurance capital within and outside the Group through PICC Capital Investment Management Company.The Company has also made strategic investments in non-insurance financial businesses such as banking and trust.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 7,619
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

China Pacific Insurance Company

银城中路190号, 浦东新区, 上海, 200120, CN
Last Update: 2025-11-21
Between 800 and 849

China Pacific Life Insurance Co., Ltd (CPIC Life in short) was formed on the basis of life insurance business of China Pacific Insurance Co., Ltd., which was founded on May 13th 1991, and is held by CPIC Group. The company was incorporated in November 11, 2001, headquartered in Shanghai and registered capital totaling RMB 5.1 billion. In 2008, the premium income of the company reached RMB 66.092 billion, ranking 3rd in China life insurance market with a share of 9.0%, according to data published by CIRC. The company achieved a profit of RMB 2.104 billion this year with net profit of RMB 2.904 million.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 24,967
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-people's-insurance-company-group-of-china.jpeg
中国人民保险 PICC
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/china-pacific-insurance-company.jpeg
China Pacific Insurance Company
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
中国人民保险 PICC
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
China Pacific Insurance Company
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for 中国人民保险 PICC in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for China Pacific Insurance Company in 2025.

Incident History — 中国人民保险 PICC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

中国人民保险 PICC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — China Pacific Insurance Company (X = Date, Y = Severity)

China Pacific Insurance Company cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/the-people's-insurance-company-group-of-china.jpeg
中国人民保险 PICC
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/china-pacific-insurance-company.jpeg
China Pacific Insurance Company
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

China Pacific Insurance Company company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to 中国人民保险 PICC company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, China Pacific Insurance Company company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to 中国人民保险 PICC company.

In the current year, China Pacific Insurance Company company and 中国人民保险 PICC company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company company nor 中国人民保险 PICC company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company company nor 中国人民保险 PICC company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither China Pacific Insurance Company company nor 中国人民保险 PICC company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither 中国人民保险 PICC company nor China Pacific Insurance Company company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither 中国人民保险 PICC nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither 中国人民保险 PICC company nor China Pacific Insurance Company company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

China Pacific Insurance Company company employs more people globally than 中国人民保险 PICC company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither 中国人民保险 PICC nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither 中国人民保险 PICC nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither 中国人民保险 PICC nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither 中国人民保险 PICC nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither 中国人民保险 PICC nor China Pacific Insurance Company holds HIPAA certification.

Neither 中国人民保险 PICC nor China Pacific Insurance Company 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