Comparison Overview
Danfoss Power Solutions

Danfoss Power Solutions
Nordborgvej 81, Nordborg, 6430, DK
Last Update: 14/11/2025
Danfoss Power Solutions is a world-class provider of mobile hydraulics serving the construction, agriculture and other off-highway vehicle markets. With our high-quality components and partnerships with our customers, we create innovative solutions, allowing vehicles to...

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
2−3 Marunouchi 3-Chome, Chiyoda-ku, 100-8332, JP
Last Update: 23/09/2026
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) Group is one of the world’s leading industrial firms. For more than 130 years, we have channeled big thinking into solutions that move the world forward – advancing the lives of everyone who shares our planet. We deliver innovative and ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Danfoss Power Solutions







Mitsubishi Heavy Industries






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Danfoss Power Solutions in 2026.
Incidents vs Industrial Machinery Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in 2026.
Incident History - Danfoss Power Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Danfoss Power Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Danfoss Power Solutions

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
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.