Comparison Overview
Ashford Inc. Asset Management

Ashford Inc. Asset Management
14185 Dallas Pkwy, Dallas, Texas, 75254, US
Last Update: 05/11/2025
Ashford Asset Management provides global asset management to the real estate and hospitality sectors. Ashford's principals have a long track record of success and many years of experience investing and operating in the hospitality industry. Currently, Ashford serves as ...

Greystar
465 Meeting St, Suite 500, Charleston, South Carolina, US, 29403
Last Update: 21/09/2026
Founded in 1993, Greystar provides world-class service in the residential rental housing industry. Our innovative vertically integrated business model integrates the management, development and investment disciplines of the rental housing industry on international, regi...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Ashford Inc. Asset Management







Greystar






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Ashford Inc. Asset Management in 2026.
Incidents vs Real Estate Industry Avg (This Year)
Greystar has 1.96% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Ashford Inc. Asset Management (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Ashford Inc. Asset Management cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Greystar (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Greystar cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Ashford Inc. Asset Management

Greystar
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.