Comparison Overview
Fashion Broadcaster

Fashion Broadcaster
N/A
Last Update: 25/04/2026
Fashion Broadcaster provides in-depth insights and expert analysis on the most impactful news and trends shaping the fashion & accessories industry. Our weekly newsletter and content focus on crucial topics, including digital marketing trends, social media strategy, cam...

Cox Enterprises
6305 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd, Atlanta, 30328, US
Last Update: 31/03/2026
Thousands of employees, one goal: empower people today to build a better future for the next generation. How do we do that? By disrupting industries. By treating our employees as our most important resource. By improving the quality of life in our communities and by pro...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Fashion Broadcaster







Cox Enterprises






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Technology, Information and Media Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Fashion Broadcaster in 2026.
Incidents vs Technology, Information and Media Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Cox Enterprises in 2026.
Incident History - Fashion Broadcaster (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Fashion Broadcaster cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Cox Enterprises (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Cox Enterprises cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Fashion Broadcaster

Cox Enterprises
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
phpMyFAQ before 4.1.5 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability in GroupController::updatePermissions that allows GROUP_EDIT administrators to grant arbitrary rights to groups without verifying they hold those rights themselves. A delegated administrator can exploit this by assigning high-value permissions to a group they belong to, inheriting those rights and escalating privileges up to full administrative control.
n8n before 2.25.7 and 2.26.x before 2.26.2 contains an abstract syntax tree (AST) security validator bypass in the Python Code node. An authenticated user with permission to create or modify workflows containing a Python Code node can bypass the validator and access the task executor module namespace. The issue only affects self-hosted instances where the Python Task Runner is enabled; where N8N_BLOCK_RUNNER_ENV_ACCESS is configured to allow it, this can disclose environment variables accessible to the task runner process.
Grav CMS before 2.0.0-beta.2 contains multiple code-execution vulnerabilities. Three unsafe unserialize() calls - in Scheduler\JobQueue, Framework\Cache\Adapter\FileCache, and Session - deserialize untrusted data without restricting allowed classes, enabling PHP object injection and, via a gadget chain, arbitrary code execution where an attacker controls the serialized input. Additionally, InstallCommand's git clone operation passes the branch, url, and path parameters into a shell command without escaping, allowing OS command injection via plugin/theme installation (which requires admin access). A Twig security blocklist bypass (server-side template injection) is also present. The issues are fixed in 2.0.0-beta.2.
Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability within the debug.pl script that is reachable without authentication. A remote attacker can submit a specially crafted HTTP request containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate input sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges on the underlying system.
Storage Concentrator (SC & SCVM) contains a command injection vulnerability in the ms_service.pl service, which listens on TCP port 9000 by default and accepts custom network packets to perform device actions. An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted packet containing a malicious payload that is processed without adequate sanitization, resulting in arbitrary command execution with root-level privileges.