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
Liberty Mutual InsuranceLiberty Mutual Insurance
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
Liberty Mutual Insurance

Liberty Mutual Insurance

175 Berkeley Street, Boston, 02116, US

Last Update: 21/05/2026

View Profile
690/1000Weak

At Liberty Mutual, we believe progress happens when people feel secure. For more than 110 years we have helped people and businesses embrace today and confidently pursue tomorrow by providing protection for the unexpected and delivering it with care. A Fortune 100 c...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:37,904
Subsidiaries:17
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
1
Attack type number
2

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
Liberty Mutual Insurance

Liberty Mutual Insurance

-
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)

Liberty Mutual Insurance has 4.76% fewer 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 - Liberty Mutual Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Liberty Mutual Insurance 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
Liberty Mutual Insurance

Liberty Mutual Insurance

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
LIB1779359744
🔒 Incident : Breach
LIB001072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-12484
SUMMARY

A vulnerability in keras-team/keras version 3.15.0 allows unsafe deserialization of attacker-controlled PyTorch pickle data through the public `keras.layers.TorchModuleWrapper.from_config` method. This method invokes `torch.load(..., weights_only=False)` without requiring an explicit unsafe opt-in, such as a `safe_mode=False` parameter. When called outside a `SafeModeScope(True)` context, the absence of an ambient safe mode state permits unsafe deserialization by default. This issue can lead to arbitrary code execution if untrusted Keras layer configurations are processed using this method. The vulnerability arises because the method does not enforce safe deserialization practices unless explicitly guarded by Keras safe mode.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
1.8
CVE-2026-64186
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: iommu/amd: Remove latent out-of-bounds access in IOMMU debugfs In iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write(), the variables dbg_mmio_offset and dbg_cap_offset are declared as int. However, they are populated using kstrtou32_from_user(). If a user provides a sufficiently large value, it can become a negative integer. Prior to this patch, the AMD IOMMU debugfs implementation was already protected by different mechanisms. 1. #define OFS_IN_SZ 8 ensures the user string <= 8 bytes, so e.g. 0xffffffff isn't a valid input. if (cnt > OFS_IN_SZ) return -EINVAL; 2. Implicit type promotion in iommu_mmio_write(), dbg_mmio_offset is int and iommu->mmio_phys_end is u64 if (dbg_mmio_offset > iommu->mmio_phys_end - sizeof(u64)) return -EINVAL; 3. The show handlers would currently catch the negative number and refuse to perform the read. Replace kstrtou32_from_user() with kstrtos32_from_user() to parse the input, and check for negative values to explicitly prevent out-of-bounds memory accesses directly in iommu_mmio_write() and iommu_capability_write().

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64185
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: sysfs: don't remove existing directory on update failure When sysfs_update_group() is called for a named group and create_files() fails (e.g. -ENOMEM), internal_create_group() calls kernfs_remove(kn) on the group directory. In the update path, kn was obtained via kernfs_find_and_get() and refers to a directory that already existed before this call. Removing it silently destroys a sysfs group that the caller did not create. Only remove the directory if we created it ourselves. On update failure the directory remains as it is left empty by remove_files() inside create_files(), but can be repopulated by a retry.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64184
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm/damon/sysfs-schemes: call missing mem_cgroup_iter_break() damon_sysfs_memcg_path_to_id() breaks mem_cgroup_iter() loop without calling mem_cgroup_iter_break(). This leaks the cgroup reference. Fix the issue by calling mem_cgroup_iter_break() before the break. The issue was discovered [1] by Sashiko.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-64183
SUMMARY

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: efi: Allocate runtime workqueue before ACPI init Since commit 5894cf571e14 ("acpi/prmt: Use EFI runtime sandbox to invoke PRM handlers") ACPI PRM calls are delegated to a workqueue which runs in a kernel thread, making it easier to detect and mitigate faulting memory accesses performed by the firmware. Rafael reports that such PRM accesses may occur before efisubsys_init() executes, which is where the workqueue is allocated, leading to NULL pointer dereferences. Since acpi_init() [which triggers the early PRM accesses] executes as a subsys_initcall() as well, and has its own dependencies that may be sensitive to initcall ordering, deferring acpi_init() is not an option. So instead, split off the workqueue allocation into its own postcore initcall, as this is the only missing piece to allow EFI runtime calls to be made. This ensures that EFI runtime call (including PRM calls) are accessible to all code running at subsys_initcall() level.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-19
UPDATED
Date2026-07-19
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA