Comparison Overview
ArcelorMittal Energy Projects

ArcelorMittal Energy Projects
Mannesmannweg 5 4794 SL Heijningen, Heijningen, Moerdijk, 4794 SL, NL
Last Update: 24/02/2026
Energy Projects brings a dedicated team of global specialists and smart steel solutions to the energy industry. We supply complete, customised & sustainable structural steel solutions for offshore wind, oil and gas, energy transition, wire ropes, OCTG, line pipe, and on...

JSW Steel
Bandra Kurla Complex,, Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400 051
Last Update: 10/09/2026
Over the last 35 years, we have partnered the country in its journey to self-reliance, by embracing sustainability, adopting cutting-edge technology and having innovation and R&D initiatives at the heart of our culture. From humble beginnings with a single plant in 1982...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

ArcelorMittal Energy Projects







JSW Steel






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for ArcelorMittal Energy Projects in 2026.
Incidents vs Mining Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for JSW Steel in 2026.
Incident History - ArcelorMittal Energy Projects (X = Date, Y = Severity)
ArcelorMittal Energy Projects cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - JSW Steel (X = Date, Y = Severity)
JSW Steel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

ArcelorMittal Energy Projects

JSW Steel
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.