Comparison Overview
UniCredit Bank Bosna i Hercegovina

UniCredit Bank Bosna i Hercegovina
N/A
Last Update: 25/01/2026
UniCredit Bank d.d. Mostar je registrirana poslovna banka sa sjedištem u Bosni i Hercegovini. Sa ukupnom aktivom od 6.833 miliona KM i kapitalom od 870,8 miliona KM, Banka danas posluje kroz mrežu od 70 poslovnica koja pokriva čitav teritorij Bosne i Hercegovine, što pr...

Rabobank
Croeselaan 18, Utrecht, 3521CB, NL
Last Update: 29/03/2026
Rabobank is a cooperative bank with a mission. Our goal: to help customers realize their ambitions. We serve about 10 million customers in 47 countries. As an international financial institution, we work on the well-being and prosperity of millions of people. In the Net...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

UniCredit Bank Bosna i Hercegovina







Rabobank






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for UniCredit Bank Bosna i Hercegovina in 2026.
Incidents vs Banking Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Rabobank in 2026.
Incident History - UniCredit Bank Bosna i Hercegovina (X = Date, Y = Severity)
UniCredit Bank Bosna i Hercegovina cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Rabobank (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Rabobank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

UniCredit Bank Bosna i Hercegovina

Rabobank
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.