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

Comparison Overview

UNIQA PolskaUNIQA Polska
VS
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue ShieldAnthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
UNIQA Polska

UNIQA Polska

N/A

Last Update: 06/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.uniqa.pl
756/1000Fair

UNIQA Polska i AXA w Polsce połączyły siły! UNIQA od 15 października 2020 r. jest nowym właścicielem AXA w Polsce. Obecnie działamy pod marką UNIQA. Więcej informacji na ten temat: https://www.uniqa.pl/integracja/

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:1,117
Subsidiaries:38
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

120 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, 46204, US

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.anthem.com/
653/1000Weak

At Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield we understand our health connects us to each other. What we all do impacts those around us. So Anthem is dedicated to delivering better care to our members, providing greater value to our customers and helping improve the health of o...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:10,469
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
UNIQA Polska

UNIQA Polska

-
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
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

-
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 UNIQA Polska in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - UNIQA Polska (X = Date, Y = Severity)

UNIQA Polska cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield 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...
UNIQA Polska

UNIQA Polska

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
ANT0192801112125
🔒 Incident : Breach
ANT451072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
ANT032090625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66720
SUMMARY

The GOOSE subscriber component improperly validates the UTC timestamp field in unauthenticated IEC 61850 GOOSE (EtherType 0x88B8) Layer-2 multicast messages. A specially crafted GOOSE frame containing an undersized timestamp field can trigger a heap out-of-bounds read during message processing, causing the process to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66421
SUMMARY

OpenClaw Dashboard contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the administrator's browser session by injecting HTML markup into agent transcript messages processed through the sessions API. Attackers can craft a message containing inline event handler payloads such as an img tag with an onerror attribute within the 60-character rendering budget, which is stored in the session transcript and interpolated unsanitized into innerHTML on the default landing page, allowing theft of session tokens and unauthorized calls to authenticated administrative endpoints including agent instruction file modification.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66420
SUMMARY

MeshCentral 1.1.21 contains a cross-site WebSocket hijacking protection bypass vulnerability that allows unauthenticated remote attackers to hijack authenticated administrator sessions by exploiting an unconditional early return in the CheckWebServerOriginName() function within webserver.js when self-signed certificates are in use. Attackers can open cross-origin WebSocket connections to any of the twelve WebSocket endpoints, send crafted action commands to exfiltrate the server sessionKey used to sign session cookies, forge session tokens as arbitrary users, and gain full remote control of all managed devices governed by the MeshCentral instance.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.6
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/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
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-66369
SUMMARY

The GOOSE parser contains an off-by-one boundary-handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer-2 multicast frame on the process bus. When specific GOOSE message fields are processed, the parser advances its internal buffer position incorrectly, resulting in a heap out-of-bounds read. On affected platforms, this condition reliably terminates the subscriber process and causes a denial-of-service.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8
CVE-2026-66364
SUMMARY

The GOOSE payload parser contains a boundary handling flaw that can be triggered by a single unauthenticated Layer 2 multicast frame on the process bus. When processing specific payload fields, an attacker controlled inner element length may exceed its enclosing length, causing the parser to over read by one byte. This out-of-bounds read reliably terminates the subscriber process, resulting in a denial-of-service condition.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-30
UPDATED
Date2026-07-30
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/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
2.8