Comparison Overview

Universal Title

VS

Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance

Universal Title

108 N Columbus St, Alexandria, Virginia, 22314, US
Last Update: 2026-01-23

Universal Title is a family-owned and operated settlement company and title agency with locations in six states. With over forty years of experience, and a team of over 120 people across 27 locations, our commitment to service and innovation has earned us a reputation as a leading title agency in the country.

NAICS: 52421
NAICS Definition: Insurance Agencies and Brokerages
Employees: 117
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance

901 E Battlefield, Springfield, Missouri, 65807, US
Last Update: 2026-01-01
Between 750 and 799

Nixon & Lindstrom is a company which views the future with certainty and optimism. We will attain the pinnacle of success by a relentless pursuit of excellence in service combined with the continuous acquisition of new customers. Nixon & Lindstrom recognizes a company's worth is found in the quality of its personnel and thus we will attract, nurture, and keep the highest quality people this industry has to offer. Our company is a place where creativity is rewarded, laughter is encouraged, and integrity is expected. We strive to become a vehicle by which our personnel can achieve financial security for themselves and their families. They, in return, will give this firm the very best they have to offer in terms of quality work, loyalty, and above all, honesty. Innovation and determination are synonymous with our company name. Bureaucracy and complacency are our sworn enemy. Unwavering leadership enables us to quickly recognize and exploit business opportunities. We will not grow older, only wiser. Our corporate fabric is woven with the threads of experience, positive attitudes, and class. Pride is our trademark. Nixon & Lindstrom will endure the test of time by continuously applying the principles of our founder... If we work hard and always do what is best for the customer, we will prosper.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition:
Employees: 47
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/universal-title.jpeg
Universal Title
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/nixon-&-lindstrom-insurance.jpeg
Nixon & Lindstrom 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
Universal Title
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Agencies and Brokerages Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Universal Title in 2026.

Incidents vs Insurance Agencies and Brokerages Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance in 2026.

Incident History — Universal Title (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Universal Title cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/universal-title.jpeg
Universal Title
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/nixon-&-lindstrom-insurance.jpeg
Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Universal Title company and Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance company demonstrate a comparable AI Cybersecurity Score, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Universal Title company.

In the current year, Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance company and Universal Title company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance company nor Universal Title company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance company nor Universal Title company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance company nor Universal Title company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Universal Title company nor Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Universal Title nor Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither Universal Title company nor Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

Universal Title company employs more people globally than Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance Agencies and Brokerages.

Neither Universal Title nor Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Universal Title nor Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Universal Title nor Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Universal Title nor Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Universal Title nor Nixon & Lindstrom Insurance holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Universal Title nor Nixon & Lindstrom 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