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

Comparison Overview

WTW Financial, Executive & Professional RisksWTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks
VS
MetLifeMetLife
WTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks

WTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks

51 Lime Street, London, EC3M 7DQ, GB

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.wtwco.com
756/1000Fair

We have teams of experts worldwide that advise senior management on Financial Lines of business such as Executive and Professional Risks, Credit, Political and Terrorism insurance. We have teams based in Great Britain, North America, Western Europe, Asia, Latin America,...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:None
Subsidiaries:14
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
MetLife

MetLife

200 Park Ave, New York, NY, US, 10166

Last Update: 04/04/2026

View Profile
Between 650 and 699
http://www.metlife.com
666/1000Weak

We live in a time of unprecedented change. A time when economies, regulations, and social safety nets are all in flux. Customers around the globe have told us they’re overwhelmed by the pace of change and are looking for a trusted partner to help them manage life’s twi...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:43,494
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
5
Attack type number
2

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
WTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks

WTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks

-
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
MetLife

MetLife

-
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 WTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for MetLife in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - WTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks (X = Date, Y = Severity)

WTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

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

Incident History - MetLife (X = Date, Y = Severity)

MetLife 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...
WTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks

WTW Financial, Executive & Professional Risks

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
MetLife

MetLife

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Ransomware
MET851032025
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET502072525
🔒 Incident : Breach
MET636072625

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-63175
SUMMARY

PlaywrightCapture stored capture-specific configuration and runtime data as mutable class-level variables rather than instance-level variables. Consequently, multiple Capture objects running within the same Python process could share state, including HTTP headers, cookies, browser storage, HTTP credentials, proxy configuration, user-agent settings, geolocation information, and captured request data. In a multi-user or concurrent deployment, information supplied during one capture could therefore persist and be reused by a subsequent or parallel capture. This could result in the disclosure of authentication cookies, credentials, browser storage, or captured request data belonging to another user. It could also cause requests to be performed with another capture's authentication context, headers, or proxy configuration, potentially enabling unauthorized access to remote resources or interference with other capture operations. The vulnerability is resolved by initializing all capture-specific settings and request data as instance variables in the Capture constructor, ensuring that state is isolated between capture operations.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-62314
SUMMARY

Anubis is a Web AI Firewall Utility that challenges users' connections in order to protect upstream resources from scraper bots. From 1.22.0 until 1.26.0-pre1, lib/policy/checker.go PathChecker.Check() trusted the client-controlled X-Original-URI header before matching r.URL.Path, allowing an HTTP client to match default data/common/keep-internet-working.yaml ALLOW rules such as ^/\.well-known/.*$ and bypass the Anubis challenge. This issue is fixed in version 1.26.0-pre1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55652
SUMMARY

Wekan is open source kanban built with Meteor. Prior to 9.46, header-login with HEADER_LOGIN_TRUSTED_IPS uses getRequestIp() in server/lib/headerLoginAuth.js to trust the client-supplied X-Forwarded-For header before the real socket address, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to send HEADER_LOGIN_ID for any username and receive a meteor_login_token session, including for admin. This issue is fixed in version 9.46.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-55576
SUMMARY

MaaAssistantArknights is a one-click tool for daily Arknights tasks. In the current dev-v2 workflow, .github/workflows/release-preparation.yml inlined attacker-controlled github.event.pull_request.title into a run: shell command during the pull_request opened, reopened, and ready_for_review events, so a non-draft fork PR whose title starts with Release v could execute shell commands on the ubuntu-latest runner during the generate-changelog job. This vulnerability is fixed by commit cafc3946059e6337d2089d4fec8b6885ba17c332.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/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
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-55445
SUMMARY

Qinglong is a timed task management platform supporting Python3, JavaScript, Shell, and Typescript. Prior to 2.20.1, the init guard middleware in back/loaders/express.ts checks /api/user/init but not /open/user/init, while rewrite('/open/*', '/api/$1') rewrites the whitelisted /open/* path after JWT authentication and the guard have passed; an unauthenticated attacker can send PUT /open/user/init to reset administrator credentials on an initialized instance. This issue is fixed in 2.20.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-15
UPDATED
Date2026-07-15
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 9.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA