Comparison Overview
Clearent by Xplor

Clearent by Xplor
undefined, Atlanta, Georgia, undefined, US
Last Update: 28/11/2025
Clearent is a leading full-service payments solution provider that recently expanded its reach through the merger with software powerhouse Transaction Services Group. The resulting company is Xplor Technologies (Xplor) who serves over 82,000 businesses, processes over $...

Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC
707 2nd Ave S, Minneapolis, MN, US, 55402
Last Update: 05/09/2026
At Ameriprise Financial, we have been helping people feel more confident about their financial future for over 130 years. With extensive investment advice, asset management and insurance capabilities and a nationwide network of approximately 10,000 financial advisors*, ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Clearent by Xplor







Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Clearent by Xplor in 2026.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Clearent by Xplor (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Clearent by Xplor cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Clearent by Xplor

Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC
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.