Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

MindshareMindshare
VS
EpsilonEpsilon
Mindshare

Mindshare

Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge Road, London, SE1 9HS, GB

Last Update: 07/03/2026

View Profile
778/1000Fair

Mindshare is a media services brand that accelerates Good Growth for its clients in the age of transformation. Good Growth is business growth that is enduring and sustainable whilst also helping to shape society and the world for the better. We accelerate Good Growth ...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:7,492
Subsidiaries:170
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Epsilon

Epsilon

6021 Connection Drive, Irving, Texas, US, 75039

Last Update: 15/09/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.epsilon.com
783/1000Fair

Epsilon is a global data, technology and services company that powers the marketing and advertising ecosystem. The world’s leading brands use Epsilon to harmonize consumer engagement across their paid, owned and earned channels, leveraging capabilities that include da...

NAICS:541613
NAICS Definition:Marketing Consulting Services
Employees:10,919
Subsidiaries:6
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Mindshare

Mindshare

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Epsilon

Epsilon

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Mindshare in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Advertising Services Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Epsilon in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - Mindshare (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Mindshare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Epsilon (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Epsilon cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Mindshare

Mindshare

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Epsilon

Epsilon

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
EPS153827123
🔒 Incident : Breach
EPS458072625

FAQ

Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Mindshare company and Epsilon company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Mindshare and Epsilon, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Mindshare and Epsilon, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Mindshare or Epsilon ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Mindshare or Epsilon ?
Between Mindshare and Epsilon, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Mindshare and Epsilon, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-96795
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, HorillaListView.export_data in horilla_views/generic/cbv/views.py accepts an authenticated user's columns POST parameter, takes field_tuple[1], interpolates it into dynamic_fn_str as Python source, and passes the generated function definition to exec(). A crafted string that remains valid under ast.literal_eval can inject Python syntax into a default argument evaluated during function definition, allowing arbitrary operating-system commands to execute with the application process privileges, including root privileges in the shipped Docker image. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 8.8)
CVSS3
Base Score: 8.8
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.9
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-86066
SUMMARY

Horilla is an HR and CRM software. Prior to 2.0.0, approve_validate_attendance_request at /attendance/approve-validate-attendance-request/ changes attendance_validated, is_validate_request_approved, approved_by, and related pending-request state through an HTTP GET before calling attendance.save(), so Django does not require CSRF validation for the action. An unauthenticated attacker can cause a logged-in manager with attendance.change_attendance to make a top-level request that carries the manager's SameSite=Lax session cookie, silently approving attendance with the victim's privileges and attributing the approval to the victim in the audit trail. This issue is fixed in version 2.0.0.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-57449
SUMMARY

Actual is a local-first personal finance tool. Prior to 26.7.0, Actual Sync Server's CORS proxy is intended to let authenticated users fetch resources only from repositories listed in the official plugin allowlist. When `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN` is configured, the proxy automatically attaches the server's GitHub token to GitHub requests. The GitHub API allowlist check uses a raw `startsWith()` prefix test for `/repos/{owner}/{repo}` without requiring a path boundary after the repository name. If an allowlisted public plugin repository is `https://github.com/acme/plugin`, the proxy also accepts GitHub API URLs. Those URLs are outside the allowlisted repository but still pass because their API path starts with `/repos/acme/plugin`. The proxy then forwards the request with the server's `ACTUAL_GITHUB_TOKEN`, allowing any authenticated Actual user to read private GitHub resources reachable by that token. Version 26.7.0 fixes the issue.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: )
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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
IMPACT SCORE
NA
EXPLOITABILITY
NA
CVE-2026-92842
SUMMARY

The convert.base64-encode, convert.quoted-printable-encode and convert.quoted-printable-decode stream filters accept a line-break-chars option whose length is tracked separately from the string itself. The filter constructors duplicate the value with pestrdup(), which stops at the first NUL byte, while keeping the original length. When the filter later emits a line break it copies the recorded length out of the truncated allocation, reading past its end and placing adjacent heap bytes into the filter output.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-91768
SUMMARY

The IPv6 branch of the FastCGI client access check compares only the first 12 bytes of a 16-byte IPv6 address, so listen.allowed_clients matches on a /96 prefix instead of the exact address. An attacker who can source an address sharing the first 96 bits with an allowed one passes the check and reaches the FastCGI endpoint.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-09-25
UPDATED
Date2026-09-25
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8