Comparison Overview

Meta Marketing Agency

VS

Interpublic Group (IPG)

Meta Marketing Agency

1800 Wazee St, Denver, Colorado, undefined, US
Last Update: 2024-08-14 (UTC)
Between 900 and 1000

Excellent

Meta Marketing Agency is a social media directed agency that provides its customers with social audits, marketing strategies, content and ad development, along with many more social exposure and reputation management services.

NAICS: 541613
NAICS Definition: Marketing Consulting Services
Employees: 5
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Interpublic Group (IPG)

909 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022, US
Last Update: 2025-05-06 (UTC)

Excellent

Between 900 and 1000

Interpublic (NYSE: IPG) is a values-based, data-fueled, and creatively-driven provider of marketing solutions. Home to some of the worldโ€™s best-known and most innovative communications specialists, IPG global brands include Acxiom, Craft, FCB, FutureBrand, Golin, Initiative, IPG Health, IPG Mediabrands, Jack Morton, KINESSO, MAGNA, McCann, Mediahub, Momentum, MRM, MullenLowe Global, Octagon, UM, Weber Shandwick and more. IPG is an S&P 500 company with total revenue of $10.7 billion in 2024.

NAICS: 541613
NAICS Definition: Marketing Consulting Services
Employees: 15,245
Subsidiaries: 36
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/meta-marketing-agency.jpeg
Meta Marketing Agency
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ipg.jpeg
Interpublic Group (IPG)
โ€”
ISO 27001
Not verified
โ€”
SOC 2
Not verified
โ€”
GDPR
No public badge
โ€”
PCI DSS
No public badge
Compliance Summary
Meta Marketing Agency
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
Interpublic Group (IPG)
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Meta Marketing Agency in 2025.

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Interpublic Group (IPG) in 2025.

Incident History โ€” Meta Marketing Agency (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Meta Marketing Agency cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History โ€” Interpublic Group (IPG) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Interpublic Group (IPG) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/meta-marketing-agency.jpeg
Meta Marketing Agency
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/ipg.jpeg
Interpublic Group (IPG)
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

Both Meta Marketing Agency company and Interpublic Group (IPG) company demonstrate a comparable AI risk posture, with strong governance and monitoring frameworks in place.

Historically, Interpublic Group (IPG) company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to Meta Marketing Agency company.

In the current year, Interpublic Group (IPG) company and Meta Marketing Agency company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither Interpublic Group (IPG) company nor Meta Marketing Agency company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither Interpublic Group (IPG) company nor Meta Marketing Agency company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither Interpublic Group (IPG) company nor Meta Marketing Agency company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither Meta Marketing Agency company nor Interpublic Group (IPG) company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Interpublic Group (IPG) company has more subsidiaries worldwide compared to Meta Marketing Agency company.

Interpublic Group (IPG) company employs more people globally than Meta Marketing Agency company, reflecting its scale as a Advertising Services.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

Formbricks is an open source qualtrics alternative. Prior to version 4.0.1, Formbricks is missing JWT signature verification. This vulnerability stems from a token validation routine that only decodes JWTs (jwt.decode) without verifying their signatures. Both the email verification token login path and the password reset server action use the same validator, which does not check the tokenโ€™s signature, expiration, issuer, or audience. If an attacker learns the victimโ€™s actual user.id, they can craft an arbitrary JWT with an alg: "none" header and use it to authenticate and reset the victimโ€™s password. This issue has been patched in version 4.0.1.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 9.4
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L
Description

Apollo Studio Embeddable Explorer & Embeddable Sandbox are website embeddable software solutions from Apollo GraphQL. Prior to Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3, a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified. The vulnerability arises from missing origin validation in the client-side code that handles window.postMessage events. A malicious website can send forged messages to the embedding page, causing the victimโ€™s browser to execute arbitrary GraphQL queries or mutations against their GraphQL server while authenticated with the victimโ€™s cookies. This issue has been patched in Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3.

Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.2
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:H/A:N
Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in Portabilis i-Educar up to 2.10. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file /consulta-dispensas. Such manipulation leads to improper authorization. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

A weakness has been identified in Portabilis i-Educar up to 2.10. Affected is an unknown function of the file /module/Api/aluno. This manipulation of the argument aluno_id causes improper authorization. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited.

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 6.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 6.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
Description

A security flaw has been discovered in Tencent WeKnora 0.1.0. This impacts the function testEmbeddingModel of the file /api/v1/initialization/embedding/test. The manipulation of the argument baseUrl results in server-side request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component. The vendor responds: "We have confirmed that the issue mentioned in the report does not exist in the latest releases".

Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 7.5
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
cvss3
Base: 7.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
cvss4
Base: 6.9
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X