Comparison Overview
Marks and Spencer

Marks and Spencer
Waterside House, London, W2 1NW, GB
Last Update: 18/06/2026
At M&S, we're dedicated to being the most trusted retailer, prioritising quality and delivering value. Every day, we bring the magic of M&S to our customers, whenever, wherever and however they want to shop with us. For over a century, we've set the standard, doing the ...

IKEA
Olof Palmestraat 1, Delft, Zuid-Holland, NL, 2616
Last Update: 02/06/2026
The IKEA vision is to create a better everyday life for the many people. Our business idea is to offer well-designed, functional and affordable, high-quality home furnishing, produced with care for people and the environment. The IKEA Brand unites more than 200.000 co-...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Marks and Spencer







IKEA






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)
Marks and Spencer has 159.07% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)
IKEA has 5.66% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Marks and Spencer (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Marks and Spencer cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - IKEA (X = Date, Y = Severity)
IKEA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Marks and Spencer

IKEA
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.