Comparison Overview
Amazon Fashion & Sports

Amazon Fashion & Sports
1 Principal Place, London, EC2A 2BA, GB
Last Update: 21/03/2026
At Amazon Fashion & Sports, we don't just support your business, we can help take it to the next level. With our technology, fulfilment network, and e-commerce expertise, you can devote yourself to what you love most—whether that's crafting exciting collections, creatin...

Forever 21
3880 Mission Road, Los Angeles, 90031, US
Last Update: 02/04/2026
Forever 21 continues to be a fashion industry leader with a mission to make the latest trends accessible to all. F21 persists on staying ahead of innovation and providing styles and fit that our customers love. While reinventing for now and beyond, we’re seeking passion...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Amazon Fashion & Sports







Forever 21






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Amazon Fashion & Sports in 2026.
Incidents vs Retail Apparel and Fashion Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Forever 21 in 2026.
Incident History - Amazon Fashion & Sports (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Amazon Fashion & Sports cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Forever 21 (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Forever 21 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Amazon Fashion & Sports

Forever 21
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.