Comparison Overview
Arla Foods

Arla Foods
Sønderhøj 14, Viby, DK, 8260
Last Update: 01/04/2026
We are more than 23,000 colleagues across 39 countries and 7,624 dairy farmer-owners in Denmark, Sweden, United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. We aim to create the future of dairy, to bring healthy and sustainable dairy products to people ac...

Mars
6885 Elm St, McLean, Virginia, US, 22101
Last Update: 29/03/2026
We’re a unified force of 170,000+ Associates, taking action every day toward the world we want tomorrow. Our Five Principles have kept us true to ourselves and to our commitment to treat others in ways that are consistent with those values. Having stood the test of ti...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Arla Foods







Mars






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Arla Foods in 2026.
Incidents vs Food and Beverage Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Mars in 2026.
Incident History - Arla Foods (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Arla Foods cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Mars (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Mars cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Arla Foods

Mars
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.