Comparison Overview
Coloplast Interventional Urology
Coloplast Interventional Urology
Holtedam 1, , Humlebæk, undefined, undefined, DK
Last Update: 26/12/2025
Coloplast is a leading global manufacturer and marketer of innovative medical devices for the management and treatment of urological conditions, including stress urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, kidney stones, erectile dysfunction and testicular replacement....
Danaher Corporation
2200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, 20037, US
Last Update: 04/04/2026
Danaher is a leading global life sciences and diagnostics innovator, committed to accelerating the power of science and technology to improve human health. We partner with customers across the globe to help them solve their most complex challenges, architecting solution...
Compliance Ranges Comparison
Coloplast Interventional Urology
Danaher Corporation
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Coloplast Interventional Urology in 2026.
Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Danaher Corporation in 2026.
Incident History - Coloplast Interventional Urology (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Coloplast Interventional Urology cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Danaher Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Danaher Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents
Coloplast Interventional Urology
Danaher Corporation
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.