Comparison Overview

Tokio Marine Group

VS

QBE Insurance

Tokio Marine Group

Tokyo, JP
Last Update: 2025-11-24
Between 750 and 799

Tokio Marine Group is a global insurance group that provides safety and security to customers worldwide. The Group consists of Tokio Marine Holdings and over 250 subsidiaries and 26 affiliates located in more than 480 cities in 46 countries and regions worldwide, operating extensively in the non-life (P&C) insurance business, life insurance business, and financial and general businesses. The insurance business is based upon the commitment to be there for our clients in their moment of need. It is a people’s business, therefore our people and the trust they engender is everything. We will continue to build a workforce that has been empowered and enabled to think and act from the customer's point of view and to live up to our corporate vision to be a Good Company.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 16,186
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

QBE Insurance

388 George Street, Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, AU
Last Update: 2025-11-26
Between 750 and 799

QBE is an international insurer and reinsurer listed on the Australian Securities Exchange and headquartered in Sydney. We employ over 13,000 people in 26 countries. Leveraging our deep expertise and insights, QBE offers commercial, personal and specialty products and risk management solutions to help people and businesses manage risks, build strength and embrace change to their advantage. See our Terms of Use: qbe.co/2y7Ck4p See our Privacy Policy: qbe.co/3oa7gZB

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 13,832
Subsidiaries: 13
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tokio-marine-holdings.jpeg
Tokio Marine 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/qbe.jpeg
QBE Insurance
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
Tokio Marine Group
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
QBE Insurance
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Tokio Marine Group in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for QBE Insurance in 2025.

Incident History — Tokio Marine Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Tokio Marine Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — QBE Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

QBE Insurance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/tokio-marine-holdings.jpeg
Tokio Marine Group
Incidents

Date Detected: 8/2021
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qbe.jpeg
QBE Insurance
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Tokio Marine Group company and QBE Insurance company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Tokio Marine Group company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas QBE Insurance company has not reported any.

In the current year, QBE Insurance company and Tokio Marine Group company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Tokio Marine Group company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while QBE Insurance company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither QBE Insurance company nor Tokio Marine Group company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither QBE Insurance company nor Tokio Marine Group company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Tokio Marine Group company nor QBE Insurance company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Tokio Marine Group nor QBE Insurance holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

QBE Insurance company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Tokio Marine Group company.

Tokio Marine Group company employs more people globally than QBE Insurance company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Tokio Marine Group nor QBE Insurance holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Tokio Marine Group nor QBE Insurance holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Tokio Marine Group nor QBE Insurance holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Tokio Marine Group nor QBE Insurance holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Tokio Marine Group nor QBE Insurance holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Tokio Marine Group nor QBE Insurance 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