Comparison Overview
Aloft Hotels

Aloft Hotels
10400 Fernwood Rd, Bethesda, Maryland, 20817, US
Last Update: 25/01/2026
Aloft hotels are always popping up in the most unexpected places, lighting cities all over the world with a social spark. Each of the 100+ Aloft hotels is ultra unique, but all share a sense of excitement that leaves guests amazed and abuzz. Aloft® is designed for th...

Rotana Hotels
Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, AE, P.O. Box 95100
Last Update: 13/09/2026
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

Aloft Hotels







Rotana Hotels






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Aloft Hotels in 2026.
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Rotana Hotels in 2026.
Incident History - Aloft Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Aloft Hotels 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

Aloft Hotels

Rotana Hotels
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Requesting a user or organization profile page (`GET /{username}`) with an `Accept: application/rss+xml` or `Accept: application/atom+xml` header returned the owner's activity feed without the visibility check that the profile page and the `.rss` and `.atom` routes apply. Anonymous users, restricted users and non-members could confirm the existence of limited or private users and private organizations and read their profile details and public activity, also when `[other] ENABLE_FEED` was disabled. Activity in private repositories was not included.
The Gitea API endpoint for creating push mirrors (`POST /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/push_mirrors`) checked only whether mirroring was enabled and not the `[mirror] DISABLE_NEW_PUSH` setting that the web interface enforces. A repository administrator could therefore create new push mirrors on instances where the site administrator had disabled them. A push mirror pushes all refs of the repository to a remote chosen by the caller, on each commit or on a schedule.
The Gitea API endpoint `GET /api/v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/media/{filepath}` wrote files of up to 1 KiB that are stored directly in Git, not in LFS, to the response without the content type and disposition headers Gitea uses for user content. An HTML file committed to a repository was therefore rendered by the browser on the Gitea origin. A user who can push to a repository could run JavaScript in the session of a victim who opens the media URL and act with the victim's permissions.
With `[repository] FORCE_PRIVATE = true`, Gitea creates new repositories as private, but the post-receive hook still applied the `repo.private=false` push option to an empty repository created by push. Any user who can create repositories could make their new repository public in violation of the instance policy. The default configuration is not affected.
The Gitea push mirror API checked whether the repository owner, instead of the requesting user, may use local file system paths. On instances with `[security] IMPORT_LOCAL_PATHS = true`, a repository administrator who is not allowed to import local paths could add a push mirror to a local path on the server when the repository owner has that permission. Gitea then pushed the repository's refs into an existing Git repository at that path with the permissions of the Gitea process.