Comparison Overview
J.P. Morgan

J.P. Morgan
270 Park Avenue, New York, NY, US, 10017
Last Update: 05/04/2026
J.P. Morgan is a leader in financial services, offering solutions to clients in more than 100 countries with one of the most comprehensive global product platforms available. We have been helping our clients to do business and manage their wealth for more than 200 years...

Aon
122 Leadenhall Street, London, GB, EC3V 4AN
Last Update: 19/06/2026
We exist to shape decisions for the better — to protect and enrich the lives of people around the world. Through actionable analytic insight, globally integrated Risk Capital and Human Capital expertise, and locally relevant solutions, our colleagues provide clients in ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

J.P. Morgan







Aon






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
J.P. Morgan has 45.36% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Aon in 2026.
Incident History - J.P. Morgan (X = Date, Y = Severity)
J.P. Morgan cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Aon (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Aon cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

J.P. Morgan

Aon
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.