Comparison Overview
Fit For Work

Fit For Work
4040 Broadway Street Suite 220, San Antonio, TX, 78209, US
Last Update: 29/11/2025
Fit For Work™ is an Injury Prevention firm that partners with large companies to deliver a 50% reduction in injuries so they can focus on their business. For over 20 years, our diverse team Athletic Trainers, Occupational Therapist, Physical Therapist, Certified Profess...

Grupo Fleury
Avenida Morumbi, 8860, São Paulo, SP, BR
Last Update: 04/09/2026
O Grupo Fleury é reconhecido como uma referência de qualidade em medicina diagnóstica no país, com soluções completas, coordenação de cuidado centrada no indivíduo, capacidade de inovação e tecnologia. Temos um portfólio de saúde integrado, preventivo e híbrido, nascem...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Fit For Work







Grupo Fleury






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Fit For Work in 2026.
Incidents vs Wellness and Fitness Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Grupo Fleury in 2026.
Incident History - Fit For Work (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Fit For Work cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Grupo Fleury (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Grupo Fleury cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Fit For Work

Grupo Fleury
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.