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

Comparison Overview

XL CatlinXL Catlin
VS
ICICI LombardICICI Lombard
XL Catlin

XL Catlin

One Bermudiana Road, Hamilton, Bermuda, HM 08 , BM

Last Update: 20/02/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.xlcatlin.com
762/1000Fair

XL Catlin. We’re here to help your business move forward. With an incredible blend of people, products, services and technology, we’re looking at risk in a new way. From insurance to reinsurance, we can help you find innovative answers for a changing world. Powerful ...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:2,202
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
ICICI Lombard

ICICI Lombard

ICICI Lombard House 414, P Balu Marg Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi , Mumbai , 400025, IN

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.icicilombard.com/
778/1000Fair

ICICI Lombard is one of the leading private general insurance company in the country. The Company offers a well-diversified range of products through multiple distribution channels, including motor, health, crop, fire, personal accident, marine, engineering, and liabi...

NAICS:524
NAICS Definition:Insurance Carriers and Related Activities
Employees:14,548
Subsidiaries:1
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
XL Catlin

XL Catlin

-
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
ICICI Lombard

ICICI Lombard

-
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 XL Catlin in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for ICICI Lombard in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - XL Catlin (X = Date, Y = Severity)

XL Catlin cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - ICICI Lombard (X = Date, Y = Severity)

ICICI Lombard cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
XL Catlin

XL Catlin

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
ICICI Lombard

ICICI Lombard

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

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

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-59723
SUMMARY

Cline is an autonomous coding agent as an SDK, IDE extension, or CLI assistant. Prior to 3.0.30, the Cline Hub dashboard server launched by the cline dashboard command accepts WebSocket connections on the /browser endpoint without validating the Origin header, and when ROOM_SECRET is unset for local 127.0.0.1 binds, isAuthorizedBrowserRequest() allows attacker-controlled websites to send desktopCommand frames that read workspace state, mutate MCP and provider settings, and trigger command execution when a provider or model is configured. This issue is fixed in version 3.0.30.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1
CVE-2026-54784
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. In version 1.9.0, CoreWCF SPNEGO SecurityContextToken negotiation can expose the proof key recovered from the RSTR when TransportWithMessageCredential with Windows client credentials and session establishment are used, allowing an observer to impersonate the authenticated Windows principal and decrypt or forge WS-SecureConversation traffic. This issue is fixed in version 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54783
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF WS-Security endorsing and supporting signature verification does not ensure the selected ds:Signature covers the expected Security header target, allowing an attacker with one captured signed SOAP envelope to replay arbitrary service operations as the victim principal. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-54782
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML 1.1 and SAML 2.0 token validation does not correctly resolve the issuer signing key or require signed tokens when IdentityConfiguration is used with federated bindings, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to impersonate any principal the trusted STS could issue. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 10)
CVSS3
Base Score: 10.0
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.8
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-54781
SUMMARY

CoreWCF is a port of the service side of Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) to .NET Core. Prior to 1.8.1 and 1.9.1, CoreWCF SAML token validation does not enforce SubjectConfirmation method URIs or holder-of-key proof keys in SamlSecurityTokenHandler, allowing holder-of-key downgrade or custom confirmation method assertions to authenticate a subject without proving authority over the assertion. This issue is fixed in versions 1.8.1 and 1.9.1.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-08
UPDATED
Date2026-07-08
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.4)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.4
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2