Comparison Overview
COMO Metropolitan London
COMO Metropolitan London
Old Park Lane, London, W1K 1LB, GB
Last Update: 29/11/2025
COMO Metropolitan London combines contemporary design, a vibrant Park Lane location and expert staff. Japanese-Peruvian restaurant Nobu features award-winning cuisine situated on the first floor of the property. COMO Shambhala Urban Escape offers holistic therapies, yog...
Rotana Hotels
Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, AE, P.O. Box 95100
Last Update: 02/04/2026
Since inception, Rotana has grown to be the region’s largest hospitality management company, and a brand that is widely recognized and admired. Rotana currently manages a portfolio of over 100 properties throughout the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and Türkiye o...
Compliance Ranges Comparison
COMO Metropolitan London
Rotana Hotels
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for COMO Metropolitan London in 2026.
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Rotana Hotels in 2026.
Incident History - COMO Metropolitan London (X = Date, Y = Severity)
COMO Metropolitan London cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Rotana Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Rotana Hotels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents
COMO Metropolitan London
Rotana Hotels
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.