Comparison Overview
DoorDash

DoorDash
San Francisco, California, US
Last Update: 11/06/2026
At DoorDash, our mission to empower local economies shapes how our team members move quickly and always learn and reiterate to support merchants, Dashers and the communities we serve. We are a technology and logistics company that started with door-to-door delivery, and...

Expedia Group
1111 Expedia Group Way W., Seattle, 98119, US
Last Update: 01/04/2026
At Expedia Group (NASDAQ: EXPE), we believe travel is a force for good – it opens minds, builds connections, and bridges divides. We create transformative tech that enables unforgettable experiences for all travelers, everywhere. Our trusted family of brands are known a...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

DoorDash







Expedia Group






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
DoorDash has 4.76% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Expedia Group in 2026.
Incident History - DoorDash (X = Date, Y = Severity)
DoorDash cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Expedia Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Expedia Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

DoorDash

Expedia Group
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.