Comparison Overview
DriveWealth

DriveWealth
28 Liberty St, New York, NY, US, 10005
Last Update: 01/10/2026
DriveWealth is a global B2B financial technology platform. Our core business is providing Brokerage-as-a-Service, powering the investing and trading experiences for banks, broker dealers, asset managers, digital wallets, and consumer brands. DriveWealth’s APIs provide ...

XP Inc.
Avenida Chedid Jafet 75, Torre sul 30º andar, São Paulo, São Paulo, BR, 04551-065
Last Update: 21/09/2026
A XP Inc. é uma das maiores instituições financeiras independente do Brasil, dona das marcas XP, Rico, Clear, XP Educação, InfoMoney, entre outras. Com mais de 4,8 milhões de clientes ativos e um valor superior a R$ 2,2 trilhão de ativos sob custódia, há 25 anos vem tra...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

DriveWealth







XP Inc.






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
DriveWealth has 127.27% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Financial Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for XP Inc. in 2026.
Incident History - DriveWealth (X = Date, Y = Severity)
DriveWealth cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - XP Inc. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
XP Inc. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

DriveWealth

XP Inc.
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.