Comparison Overview
Progress Software

Progress Software
15 Wayside Rd, Burlington, Massachusetts, US, 01803
Last Update: 13/07/2026
Progress Software (Nasdaq: PRGS) empowers organizations to achieve transformational success in the face of disruptive change. Our software enables our customers to develop,deploy and manage responsible AI-powered applications and digital experiences with agility and eas...

Airbnb
888 Brannan Street, San Francisco, CA, US, 94103
Last Update: 09/08/2026
Airbnb was born in 2007 when two hosts welcomed three guests to their San Francisco home, and has since grown to over 5 million hosts who have welcomed over 2 billion guest arrivals in almost every country across the globe. Every day, hosts offer unique stays, experienc...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Progress Software







Airbnb






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
Progress Software has 277.36% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Airbnb in 2026.
Incident History - Progress Software (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Progress Software cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Airbnb (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Airbnb cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Progress Software

Airbnb
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
In OpenStack Ironic before 38.0.1, the autodetect deploy interface may fail to run cleaning immediately after enrollment with, or changing to, the autodetect deploy interface.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. A user with FEATURE_BUILD_SUPPORT enabled and repository write access can exploit a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability within the build API. This allows the user to provide a malicious URL, causing the Quay builder to make requests to internal network addresses. Such an action could lead to the disclosure of sensitive internal information.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's exported logs feature. An unauthenticated attacker with a valid file ID could download exported action logs without proper authorization. While file IDs are complex, they can be intercepted from plaintext email or webhook callbacks. This vulnerability leads to information disclosure, potentially exposing sensitive data such as usernames, email addresses, IP addresses, and action-specific metadata.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay's Stripe billing webhook handler. This vulnerability allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge billing events by sending crafted JSON requests to the `/webhooks/stripe` endpoint without validating the Stripe-Signature header. Successful exploitation can lead to the unauthorized resetting of a namespace's build quota to its maximum and trigger unsolicited billing emails to namespace administrators.
A flaw was found in Red Hat Quay. When the SECURITY_SCANNER_V4_PSK (pre-shared key) is not set, a remote unauthenticated attacker can send POST requests to the security scanner notification endpoint. This allows the attacker to flood the notification queue and inject path traversal characters into Clair API URL paths. The primary consequence is worker resource exhaustion and blind path manipulation on the configured Clair host, potentially leading to a denial of service.