Comparison Overview
Cerner Corporation

Cerner Corporation
2800 Rockcreek Parkway, Kansas City, 64117, US
Last Update: 27/06/2026
On December 20, 2021, Oracle and Cerner jointly announced an agreement for Oracle to acquire Cerner through an all-cash tender offer for $95.00 per share, or approximately $28.3 billion in equity value. Learn more at oracle.com/corporate/acquisitions/cerner.

Tech Mahindra
Erandwane, Pune, Maharashtra, IN, 411004
Last Update: 09/09/2026
Tech Mahindra offers technology consulting and digital solutions to global enterprises across industries, enabling transformative scale at unparalleled speed. With 149k+ professionals across 90+ countries helping 1100+ clients, TechM provides a full spectrum of services...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Cerner Corporation







Tech Mahindra






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Cerner Corporation has 104.08% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Tech Mahindra in 2026.
Incident History - Cerner Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Cerner Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Tech Mahindra (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Tech Mahindra cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Cerner Corporation

Tech Mahindra
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.