Comparison Overview
Macquarie Group

Macquarie Group
1 Elizabeth St, Sydney, 2000, AU
Last Update: 25/04/2026
At Macquarie, we empower people to innovate and invest for a better future. We are a global financial services organisation with Australian heritage, operating in 31 markets. To find out more, visit us at www.macquarie.com To read our social media disclaimer, visit m...

Goldman Sachs
200 West Street, New York, 10282, US
Last Update: 20/05/2026
We aspire to be the world’s most exceptional financial institution, united by our shared values of partnership, client service, integrity, and excellence. Operating at the center of capital markets, we act as one firm, mobilizing our people, capital, and ideas to deli...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Macquarie Group







Goldman Sachs






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Macquarie Group in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
Goldman Sachs has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Macquarie Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Macquarie Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Goldman Sachs (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Goldman Sachs cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Macquarie Group

Goldman Sachs
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.