Comparison Overview
ClearBalance Healthcare
ClearBalance Healthcare
3636 Nobel Drive, San Diego, 92122, US
Last Update: 03/04/2026
ClearBalance: The US Market Leader in Patient Financing At ClearBalance, we are transforming the way healthcare systems and patients manage medical expenses. As the #1 patient financing partner in the US, we provide interest-free, flexible repayment plans that make hea...
M&T Bank
345 Main St., Buffalo, 14203, US
Last Update: 22/04/2026
Great companies have an enduring sense of purpose. At M&T, our purpose is a simple one: make a difference in people’s lives and uplift the communities we serve. Founded in 1856 in Buffalo, NY we are now a top 11 full-service US-based commercial bank with a retail footpr...
Compliance Ranges Comparison
ClearBalance Healthcare
M&T Bank
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for ClearBalance Healthcare in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
M&T Bank has 2.91% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - ClearBalance Healthcare (X = Date, Y = Severity)
ClearBalance Healthcare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - M&T Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)
M&T Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents
ClearBalance Healthcare
M&T Bank
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
A security vulnerability has been detected in adafap api-mcp up to 92b9a5d04acfec165c7d4ef852496593aa87be06. This affects the function customAxios of the file app/api/proxy/route.ts of the component Proxy API Endpoint. The manipulation of the argument url leads to server-side request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. This product adopts a rolling release strategy to maintain continuous delivery. Therefore, version details for affected or updated releases cannot be specified. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A weakness has been identified in PhialsBasement KoboldCPP-MCP-Server 1.0.0. Affected by this issue is the function makeRequest of the file src/index.ts of the component BaseConfigSchema. Executing a manipulation of the argument apiUrl can lead to server-side request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A security flaw has been discovered in Handwriting-OCR handwriting-ocr-mcp-server 0.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function fs.readFileSync of the file src/index.ts of the component upload_document. Performing a manipulation of the argument File results in path traversal. Attacking locally is a requirement. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A vulnerability was identified in Nikolaibibo claude-comfyui-mcp 1.0.0. Affected is the function copyFileSync of the file src/tools/utils.ts of the component comfy_upload_image. Such manipulation of the argument image_path leads to path traversal. An attack has to be approached locally. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in nltk/nltk versions 3.9.4 and the current develop branch. The `nltk.pathsec.validate_network_url()` function, intended to prevent SSRF by rejecting internal network addresses, fails to reject IPs in the RFC 6598 shared address space (`100.64.0.0/10`). This occurs because Python's `ipaddress` module does not classify such addresses as `is_private` or `is_global`, and the current guard only checks `is_private` and a few explicit categories. An attacker who can influence a URL passed to NLTK's network-loading helpers can exploit this vulnerability to make a strict-mode application send requests to shared-address-space hosts, potentially exposing non-public infrastructure reachable from the application host. The impact is limited to SSRF-style confidentiality exposure, with no code execution claimed.