Comparison Overview
Mindshare Spain

Mindshare Spain
La Matriz, C/ Ríos Rosas 26, Madrid, Comunidad de Madrid, 28003, ES
Last Update: 12/03/2026
Somos Mindshare. La Red de Medios global. Cerca de 6000 personas en 67 países con un objetivo: Hacer las marcas de nuestros clientes más conocidas y rentables. Mindshare España comenzó en 1999, abriendo oficinas tanto en Madrid como en Barcelona. En la actua...

Publicis Groupe
133, avenue des Champs-Elysées, Paris, 75008, FR
Last Update: 07/05/2026
Founded in 1926 by Marcel Bleustein-Blanchet, today Publicis Groupe is the largest communications group in the world and a leader in marketing, communication, and digital business transformation, led by Arthur Sadoun, the third CEO in its history. Publicis Groupe is p...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Mindshare Spain







Publicis Groupe






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Mindshare Spain in 2026.
Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Publicis Groupe in 2026.
Incident History - Mindshare Spain (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Mindshare Spain cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Publicis Groupe (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Publicis Groupe cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Mindshare Spain

Publicis Groupe
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.