Comparison Overview
Carnival UK (P&O Cruises & Cunard)

Carnival UK (P&O Cruises & Cunard)
Carnival House, Southampton, SO15 1ST, GB
Last Update: 22/03/2026
Carnival UK is the operating company for P&O Cruises & Cunard. We provide world class cruise holidays and take enormous pride from bringing to life two of the most iconic brands from Britain’s rich seafaring heritage. That legacy of elegance and style, of beautiful ship...

BCD Travel
Europalaan 300, Utrecht, NL, 3526 KS
Last Update: 07/10/2026
BCD Travel helps companies travel smart and achieve more. We drive program adoption, cost savings and talent retention through digital experiences that simplify business travel. Our 15,000+ dedicated team members service clients in 170+ countries as we shape a sustainab...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Carnival UK (P&O Cruises & Cunard)







BCD Travel






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Carnival UK (P&O Cruises & Cunard) in 2026.
Incidents vs Travel Arrangements Industry Avg (This Year)
BCD Travel has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Carnival UK (P&O Cruises & Cunard) (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Carnival UK (P&O Cruises & Cunard) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - BCD Travel (X = Date, Y = Severity)
BCD Travel cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Carnival UK (P&O Cruises & Cunard)

BCD Travel
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.