Comparison Overview
C&A

C&A
Wanheimer Strasse 70, Düsseldorf, NRW, DE, 40468
Last Update: 31/03/2026
Ever since our founding by the brothers Clemens and August in 1841, C&A has been at the forefront of fashion. From making 'ready-to-wear' a thing when custom-made was the norm, to popularising miniskirts in the 60s, introducing the Com-bi-kini in the 70s, Bio Cotton in...

Under Armour
101 Performance Dr, Baltimore, Maryland, US, 21230
Last Update: 02/04/2026
Under Armour is obsessed with being better, stronger, and more focused than anyone else out there. Our mission: to make athletes better. Our vision: to inspire you with performance solutions you never knew you needed and can’t imagine living without. Our values d...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

C&A







Under Armour






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for C&A in 2026.
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
Under Armour has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - C&A (X = Date, Y = Severity)
C&A cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Under Armour (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Under Armour cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

C&A

Under Armour
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.