Comparison Overview
Drata

Drata
San Diego, CA, US, 92122
Last Update: 27/04/2026
Replace manual GRC efforts, reduce costs, and save time preparing for audits and maintaining compliance. Drata is the trust management platform with the mission of serving as the trust layer between great companies. We help thousands of companies streamline compliance f...

Upwork
475 Brannan St, San Francisco, 94107, US
Last Update: 12/09/2026
Upwork is the world’s work marketplace that connects businesses with independent talent from across the globe. We serve everyone from one-person startups to large, Fortune 100 enterprises with a powerful, trust-driven platform that enables companies and talent to work t...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Drata







Upwork






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
Drata has 3.85% 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 Upwork in 2026.
Incident History - Drata (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Drata cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Upwork (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Upwork cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Drata

Upwork
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.