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

Comparison Overview

Thomas Brady & AssociatesThomas Brady & Associates
VS
AflacAflac
Thomas Brady & Associates

Thomas Brady & Associates

180 Canal Street, Boston, 02114, US

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
711/1000Moderate

Thomas Brady & Associates is a national independent insurance firm that has been in business for over 55 years. The firm specializes in estate planning, business planning and insurance review and placement for successful individuals, families and businesses. Our diver...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:9
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
1
Aflac

Aflac

1932 Wynnton Rd, Columbus, 31999, US

Last Update: 04/09/2026

View Profile
Between 0 and 549
https://www.aflac.com
376/1000Critical

Over 50 Million people worldwide have chosen Aflac because of our commitment to providing customers with the confidence that comes from knowing they have assistance in being prepared for whatever life may bring. With Aflac, whether you're a large business or a small o...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:17,986
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
3
Known data breaches
8
Attack type number
3

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Thomas Brady & Associates

Thomas Brady & Associates

-
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
Aflac

Aflac

-
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 Thomas Brady & Associates in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

Aflac has 194.12% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Thomas Brady & Associates (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Thomas Brady & Associates cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

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

Aflac 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...
Thomas Brady & Associates

Thomas Brady & Associates

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
THO113072825
Aflac

Aflac

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
AFL1782816142
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
ADOCONAFLSON1786027126
🔒 Incident : Cyber Attack
AFLJAGNUC1768389868

FAQ

Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates company and Aflac company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates and Aflac, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates and Aflac, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Thomas Brady & Associates or Aflac ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Thomas Brady & Associates or Aflac ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates and Aflac, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Thomas Brady & Associates and Aflac, 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
Thomas-brady-&-associates vs Aflac - Cyber Risk Comparison & Security Rating | Rankiteo