Comparison Overview
Acqua di Parma

Acqua di Parma
Via Giuseppe Ripamonti 99, Milano, MI, 20141, IT
Last Update: 16/03/2026
Acqua di Parma was created in 1916 by the baron Carlo Magnani from Parma as his own personal Colonia. True sophistication never goes unnoticed, and amongst the in the know inner circle, the personal scent grew into a brand, sold mostly through Italian tailors as the fin...

Tiffany & Co.
727 5th Ave, New York, 10022, US
Last Update: 02/04/2026
In 1837 Charles Lewis Tiffany founded his company in New York City where his store was soon acclaimed as the palace of jewels for its exceptional gemstones. Since then TIFFANY & CO. has become synonymous with elegance, innovative design, fine craftsmanship and creative ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Acqua di Parma







Tiffany & Co.






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Acqua di Parma in 2026.
Incidents vs Retail Luxury Goods and Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)
Tiffany & Co. has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Acqua di Parma (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Acqua di Parma cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Tiffany & Co. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Tiffany & Co. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Acqua di Parma

Tiffany & Co.
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains a path traversal vulnerability in MultiAgentMonitor that fails to sanitize agent IDs when building file paths. Attackers can include traversal sequences like ../ in agent IDs to read, write, or overwrite arbitrary files, enabling sensitive disclosure, denial of service, or code execution.
PraisonAI before 1.5.115 contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the MultiAgentLedger component that allows attackers to access sensitive data by registering agents with duplicate IDs. Attackers can exploit the lack of agent ID uniqueness enforcement to share ledger instances and expose system prompts and conversation history between agents.
PraisonAI before 1.5.128 contains a cross-origin agent execution vulnerability in the AGUI endpoint that allows remote attackers to trigger arbitrary agent execution. The POST /agui endpoint lacks authentication and hardcodes Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * headers, combined with Starlette's Content-Type-agnostic JSON parsing, enabling attackers to bypass CORS preflight checks via simple requests and exfiltrate sensitive agent responses including tool execution results and environment data.
PraisonAI before 4.5.128 contains an arbitrary shell command execution vulnerability where the UI modules hardcode approval_mode to auto, overriding administrator configuration from PRAISON_APPROVAL_MODE environment variable. Authenticated attackers can instruct the LLM agent to execute arbitrary shell commands via subprocess.run with shell=True, bypassing the manual approval gate and insufficient command sanitization blocklists.
PraisonAI before 1.5.128 caches tool approval decisions by tool name only, not by invocation arguments, allowing subsequent execute_command calls to bypass approval prompts. Attackers can exploit this by obtaining initial approval for a benign command, then silently exfiltrate API keys and credentials via subsequent shell commands without user consent.