Comparison Overview
Essilor Pro-Eyecare

Essilor Pro-Eyecare
81, Boulevard Jean-Baptiste Oudry, Créteil, 94000, FR
Last Update: 25/01/2026
ESSILOR EUROPE PRO-EYECARE: PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE VISION OF EACH OF YOUR EMPLOYEES A good vision health is of first importance, it affects the safety and the efficiency of each person in its work. Essilor Pro-Eyecare ambition is to foster adapted solutions for all ty...

Smith+Nephew
5 Hatters Lane, Watford, Hertfordshire, GB, WD18 8YE
Last Update: 12/09/2026
Smith+Nephew is a global medical technology company. We design and manufacture technology that takes the limits off living. We support healthcare professionals to return their patients to health and mobility, helping them to perform at their fullest potential. From our...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Essilor Pro-Eyecare







Smith+Nephew






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Essilor Pro-Eyecare in 2026.
Incidents vs Medical Equipment Manufacturing Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Smith+Nephew in 2026.
Incident History - Essilor Pro-Eyecare (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Essilor Pro-Eyecare cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Smith+Nephew (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Smith+Nephew cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Essilor Pro-Eyecare

Smith+Nephew
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.