Comparison Overview
Delaware North

Delaware North
250 Delaware Ave, Buffalo, 14202, US
Last Update: 14/09/2026
Delaware North is a global leader in the hospitality and entertainment industry. The company annually serves more than a half-billion guests across three continents, including at high-profile sports venues, airports, national and state parks, restaurants, resorts, hotel...

Kempinski Hotels
Maximilianstrasse 17, Munich, 80539, DE
Last Update: 13/09/2026
Founded in Germany in 1897, Kempinski Hotels has long reflected the finest traditions of European hospitality. Today, as ever, Kempinski is synonymous with distinctive luxury. Located in many of the world's most well-known cities and resorts, the Kempinski collection i...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Delaware North







Kempinski Hotels






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
Delaware North has 30.72% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Hospitality Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Kempinski Hotels in 2026.
Incident History - Delaware North (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Delaware North cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Kempinski Hotels (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Kempinski Hotels cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Delaware North

Kempinski Hotels
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.