Comparison Overview
Fidelity Labs

Fidelity Labs
245 Summer St, Boston, Massachusetts, undefined, US
Last Update: 06/01/2026
We are Fidelity Labs, Fidelity Investments’ in-house new business incubator. Our mission is to build category-defining businesses from the ground-up using Fidelity’s unique assets, and we are focused on solving real problems to help Fidelity deepen relationships and ent...

Marsh McLennan
1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, US, 10036
Last Update: 05/04/2026
Marsh (NYSE: MRSH) is a global leader in risk, strategy and people, advising clients in 130 countries across four businesses: Marsh Risk, Guy Carpenter, Mercer and Oliver Wyman. With annual revenue over $24 billion and more than 90,000 ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Fidelity Labs







Marsh McLennan






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Fidelity Labs in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Marsh McLennan in 2026.
Incident History - Fidelity Labs (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Fidelity Labs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Marsh McLennan (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Marsh McLennan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Fidelity Labs

Marsh McLennan
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.