Comparison Overview
UNIQA Software Services

UNIQA Software Services
Strada Emil Racovita 23, Cluj-Napoca, Cluj, RO, 400165
Last Update: 16/12/2025
Our purpose is to deliver first class IT & Data to the UNIQA Group while providing stability and life balance in a mutually trusting environment. Our strengths are being part of an international enterprise, providing to our employees the environment for a balanced life...

DoorDash
San Francisco, US
Last Update: 07/10/2026
At DoorDash, our mission to empower local economies shapes how our team members move quickly and always learn and reiterate to support merchants, Dashers and the communities we serve. We are a technology and logistics company that started with door-to-door delivery, and...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

UNIQA Software Services







DoorDash






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for UNIQA Software Services in 2026.
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
DoorDash has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - UNIQA Software Services (X = Date, Y = Severity)
UNIQA Software Services cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - DoorDash (X = Date, Y = Severity)
DoorDash cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

UNIQA Software Services

DoorDash
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.