Comparison Overview
Get Cyber Safe

Get Cyber Safe
N/A
Last Update: 14/02/2026
Get Cyber Safe is a national public awareness campaign created to educate Canadians about Internet security and the simple steps they can take to protect themselves online. The campaign's goal is to bring together all levels of government, the public and private sectors...

Assurance Maladie
26, Avenue du Professeur André Lemierre, Paris, 75020, FR
Last Update: 15/09/2026
Travailler à l’Assurance Maladie, c’est donner une nouvelle dimension à votre métier et agir au quotidien pour la protection de notre système de santé. Participez à une grande diversité de projets dans un cadre bienveillant et soyez fier de contribuer à une mission ess...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Get Cyber Safe







Assurance Maladie






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Get Cyber Safe in 2026.
Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Assurance Maladie in 2026.
Incident History - Get Cyber Safe (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Get Cyber Safe cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Assurance Maladie (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Assurance Maladie cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Get Cyber Safe

Assurance Maladie
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.