Comparison Overview
COMO Point Yamu, Phuket

COMO Point Yamu, Phuket
225 Moo 7, Paklok, Talang, Phuket 83110, TH
Last Update: 01/11/2025
Our Phuket resort, with some of COMO's most striking pool villas, sits on the tip of Cape Yamu, giving magnificent views of Phang Nga Bay. The playful interiors are by Paola Navone — a tour-de-force in modern, location-sensitive design on an island imbued with a rich Th...

Hampton
7930 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 1100, McLean, 22102, US
Last Update: 04/09/2026
The Hampton brand, including Hampton Inn, Hampton Inn & Suites and Hampton by Hilton, is an award-winning leader in the upper-midscale hotel segment. With more than 2,700 properties in 32 countries globally, Hampton is part of Hilton Worldwide, the leading global hospit...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

COMO Point Yamu, Phuket







Hampton






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for COMO Point Yamu, Phuket in 2026.
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Hampton in 2026.
Incident History - COMO Point Yamu, Phuket (X = Date, Y = Severity)
COMO Point Yamu, Phuket cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Hampton (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Hampton cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

COMO Point Yamu, Phuket

Hampton
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.