Comparison Overview
Prosegur

Prosegur
Pajaritos, 24, Madrid, 28007, ES
Last Update: 02/04/2026
At Prosegur, being aware of who we are is what defines our identity and commitment. 🌐 We are Prosegur. Leaders in the private security sector for more than 45 years and in more than 30 countries. 💡 We are innovation. We reinvent ourselves, adapt and integrate trends t...

Securitas Nederland
De Corridor 3a, Breukelen, Utrecht, NL, 3621
Last Update: 01/04/2026
Door de juiste inzet van mens, kennis en techniek vinden we de ideale ‘veiligheidsbalans’ voor iedere situatie. Dat begint altijd met heel goed luisteren om zo te doorgronden wat de specifieke omstandigheden en wensen van de klant zijn. Vervolgens groeien we samen naar ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Prosegur







Securitas Nederland






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Prosegur in 2026.
Incidents vs Security and Investigations Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Securitas Nederland in 2026.
Incident History - Prosegur (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Prosegur cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Securitas Nederland (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Securitas Nederland cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Prosegur

Securitas Nederland
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Capgo (Cap-go/capgo) before 12.128.2 contains an improper access control vulnerability in the SECURITY DEFINER PostgREST RPC function public.record_build_time, which is granted to the anon role and callable with only the public Supabase publishable (sb_publishable_*) anon key. An unauthenticated attacker can insert rows into public.build_logs for arbitrary organizations and, because the function uses ON CONFLICT (build_id, org_id) DO UPDATE, can overwrite existing usage/billing records by reusing the same build_id for a target org. This enables cross-tenant tampering of billing build logs and financial-impact denial of service by inflating billable build time.
Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication logic flaw that lets an attacker register and control an account bound to a victim's email address before that email is verified. By enabling two-factor authentication on the pre-registered account, the attacker gains control over the account claimed under the victim's identity, allowing them to read and modify its state and enforce organization-level policies, while the legitimate user is denied access to the account tied to their own email.
Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a flaw in the Enforce Password Policy feature: after a Super Admin enables the policy and successfully changes their password to a compliant one, the backend does not update the password-compliance state. As a result, the backend continues to treat the account as non-compliant and repeatedly forces password-reset prompts, permanently locking the Super Admin out of organization access (organization lockout / denial of service) despite valid authentication.
Capgo before 12.128.2 contains a cross-tenant authorization bypass vulnerability in PostgREST endpoints that allows org-scoped read API keys to access other tenants' webhook secrets and delivery logs. Attackers can query the webhooks and webhook_deliveries endpoints to exfiltrate HMAC signing secrets and delivery payloads, enabling forged webhook events against victim organizations.
Cap-go before 12.128.2 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability in OTP verification that allows attackers to bypass email verification by modifying server responses. Attackers can intercept OTP verification requests and manipulate HTTP responses to falsely mark verification successful, enabling unauthorized 2FA enablement and account takeover.