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 ...

Vans
1588 South Coast Dr, Costa Mesa, 92626, US
Last Update: 01/04/2026
Vans is a globally iconic skate brand, forever rooted in the authentic lifestyle of skateboarding. We are driven by our mission to inspire and empower everyone to live “Off The Wall” – embracing the youthful spirit of freedom, non-conformity, and relentless progression....
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Marks and Spencer







Vans






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)
No incidents recorded for Vans in 2026.
Incident History - Marks and Spencer (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Marks and Spencer cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Vans (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Vans cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Marks and Spencer

Vans
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.