Comparison Overview
Liberty Group South Africa

Liberty Group South Africa
1 Ameshoff Street,, Braamfontein, 2001, ZA
Last Update: 17/04/2026
At Liberty we believe that knowledge shared can change people's realities, every day. Since 1957 we’ve grown from being a South African life insurer to a Pan-African financial services company, offering asset management, investment and insurance solutions. We work wit...

MetLife
200 Park Ave, New York, NY, US, 10166
Last Update: 04/04/2026
We live in a time of unprecedented change. A time when economies, regulations, and social safety nets are all in flux. Customers around the globe have told us they’re overwhelmed by the pace of change and are looking for a trusted partner to help them manage life’s twi...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Liberty Group South Africa







MetLife






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)
Liberty Group South Africa has 34.21% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for MetLife in 2026.
Incident History - Liberty Group South Africa (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Liberty Group South Africa cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - MetLife (X = Date, Y = Severity)
MetLife cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Liberty Group South Africa

MetLife
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.