Comparison Overview

Vienna Insurance Group (VIG)

VS

Porto

Vienna Insurance Group (VIG)

Schottenring 30, Vienna, undefined, 1010, AT
Last Update: 2025-11-22
Between 750 and 799

Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) is the leading insurance group in the entire Central and Eastern European (CEE) region. More than 50 insurance companies and pension funds in 30 countries form a Group with a long-standing tradition, strong brands and close customer relations. Around 30,000 employees in the VIG take care of the day-to-day needs of around 33 million customers. VIG shares have been listed on the Vienna Stock Exchange since 1994, on the Prague Stock Exchange since 2008 and on the Budapest Stock Exchange since 2022. The VIG Group has an A+ rating with stable outlook by the internationally recognised rating agency Standard & Poor’s. VIG cooperates closely with the Erste Group, the largest retail bank in Central and Eastern Europe. VIG Social Media Netiquette: http://bit.ly/VIG_Netiquette

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 13,903
Subsidiaries: 41
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Porto

Avenida Rio Branco, 1489, None, Sao Paulo, SP, BR, 01205-001
Last Update: 2025-11-27
Between 600 and 649

A Porto é mais que uma seguradora, é um ecossistema de soluções de serviços de proteção com tecnologia embarcada, para melhorar e facilitar a experiência do cliente. Com mais de 70 anos de mercado, a atuação da companhia se concentra hoje em quatro pilares estratégicos de negócio: Seguros, Saúde, Produtos Financeiros e Serviços. Além de 15.8 milhões de clientes únicos, 13 mil funcionários, 12 mil prestadores e 35 mil corretores parceiros, a empresa conta ainda com 101 sucursais e escritórios regionais em todo o Brasil. Ao todo 27 empresas fazem parte do universo Porto – entre elas: Porto Bank, Porto Saúde, Porto Seguro, Porto Serviço, Porto Seguro Uruguai, Azul Seguros, Itaú Seguros de Auto e Residência.

NAICS: 524
NAICS Definition: Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees: 22,676
Subsidiaries: 1
12-month incidents
2
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vienna-insurance-group.jpeg
Vienna Insurance Group (VIG)
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/porto.jpeg
Porto
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
Vienna Insurance Group (VIG)
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Porto
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) in 2025.

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Average (This Year)

Porto has 198.51% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incident History — Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — Porto (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Porto cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/vienna-insurance-group.jpeg
Vienna Insurance Group (VIG)
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/porto.jpeg
Porto
Incidents

Date Detected: 9/2025
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

Date Detected: 8/2025
Type:Ransomware
Blog: Blog

FAQ

Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to Porto company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Porto company has historically faced a number of disclosed cyber incidents, whereas Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) company has not reported any.

In the current year, Porto company has reported more cyber incidents than Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) company.

Porto company has confirmed experiencing a ransomware attack, while Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) company has not reported such incidents publicly.

Neither Porto company nor Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Porto company nor Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) company nor Porto company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) nor Porto holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Porto company.

Porto company employs more people globally than Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) company, reflecting its scale as a Insurance.

Neither Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) nor Porto holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) nor Porto holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) nor Porto holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) nor Porto holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) nor Porto holds HIPAA certification.

Neither Vienna Insurance Group (VIG) nor Porto 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