Comparison Overview
Geeks2U

Geeks2U
Sydney, NSW, AU, 2000
Last Update: 01/04/2026
Geeks2U has been Australia’s leading provider of on-site and remote tech support since 2005. We all rely on our tech devices, but when they malfunction, our lives become dysfunctional. To date we’ve helped 460,000 customers, both at home and at work and now, as part of ...

Mastercard
2000 Purchase St, Purchase, NY, US, 10577
Last Update: 05/10/2026
Mastercard powers economies and empowers people in 200+ countries and territories worldwide. Together with our customers, we’re building a sustainable economy where everyone can prosper. We support a wide range of digital payments choices, making transactions secure, si...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Geeks2U







Mastercard






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Geeks2U in 2026.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Mastercard has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Geeks2U (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Geeks2U cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Mastercard (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Mastercard cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Geeks2U

Mastercard
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.