Comparison Overview
la Madeleine French Bakery & Cafe

la Madeleine French Bakery & Cafe
12201 Merit Drive, Dallas, TX, 75251, US
Last Update: 04/05/2026
Since opening the doors of our first location in 1983, la Madeleine has grown from a single local bakery to a beloved French café concept with approximately 85 locations nationwide. Our plan is to continue growth with new cafés in our existing markets, as well as in new...

Red Lobster
450 S Orange Ave, Orlando, 32801, US
Last Update: 06/09/2026
With over 30,000 employees and more than 500 restaurants in the United States and Canada, Red Lobster is the world’s largest seafood restaurant company. Our vision is to be where the world goes for seafood now and for generations. Red Lobster is an innovative, values...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

la Madeleine French Bakery & Cafe







Red Lobster






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for la Madeleine French Bakery & Cafe in 2026.
Incidents vs Restaurants Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Red Lobster in 2026.
Incident History - la Madeleine French Bakery & Cafe (X = Date, Y = Severity)
la Madeleine French Bakery & Cafe cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Red Lobster (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Red Lobster cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

la Madeleine French Bakery & Cafe

Red Lobster
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.