Comparison Overview

Gruppo Unipol

VS

QBE Insurance

Gruppo Unipol

Via Stalingrado 45 Bologna, Italy 40128, IT
Last Update: 2026-01-22
Between 750 and 799

Unipol Group is one of the leading insurance groups in Europe and the leader in Italy in Non-Life business (particularly in Motor and Health), with total premium income of 15.1 billion euros, including 8.7 billion in Non-Life business and 6.4 billion in Life business (2023 figures). Unipol adopts an integrated offering strategy and covers the full range of insurance products, operating mainly through its subsidiary UnipolSai Assicurazioni. The Group is also active in direct auto insurance (Linear Assicurazioni), transport and aviation insurance (Siat), health protection (UniSalute), supplementary pensions, and oversees the bancassurance channel (Arca Vita and Arca Assicurazioni). It also manages significant diversified activities in the real estate, hotel (UNA Group), health care (Centro Medico Santagostino) and agricultural (Tenute del Cerro) sectors. Unipol Gruppo S.p.A. is listed on the Italian stock exchange.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 10,001
Subsidiaries: 4
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

QBE Insurance

388 George Street, Sydney, New South Wales, 2000, AU
Last Update: 2026-01-18
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/unipol-gruppo.jpeg
Gruppo Unipol
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
Gruppo Unipol
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 Gruppo Unipol in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for QBE Insurance in 2026.

Incident History — Gruppo Unipol (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Gruppo Unipol 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/unipol-gruppo.jpeg
Gruppo Unipol
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/qbe.jpeg
QBE Insurance
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

QBE Insurance company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Gruppo Unipol company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, QBE Insurance company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Gruppo Unipol company.

In the current year, QBE Insurance company and Gruppo Unipol company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither QBE Insurance company nor Gruppo Unipol company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither QBE Insurance company nor Gruppo Unipol company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither QBE Insurance company nor Gruppo Unipol company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Gruppo Unipol company nor QBE Insurance company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Gruppo Unipol nor QBE Insurance holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

QBE Insurance company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Gruppo Unipol company.

QBE Insurance company employs more people globally than Gruppo Unipol company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Gruppo Unipol nor QBE Insurance holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Gruppo Unipol nor QBE Insurance holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Gruppo Unipol nor QBE Insurance holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Gruppo Unipol nor QBE Insurance holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Gruppo Unipol nor QBE Insurance holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Gruppo Unipol nor QBE Insurance 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