Comparison Overview
Manpower Medical

Manpower Medical
Ludwigsstraße 11, Mainz, 55116, DE
Last Update: 05/02/2026
Wer aus einer Berufung, anderen Menschen zu helfen, seinen Beruf macht, ist heute nicht nur begehrt wie nie, sondern auch ein ganz besonderer Mensch. Als erfahrener Branchenspezialist wissen wir sehr genau, was Sie Tag für Tag leisten und was man Ihnen abverlangt. Desha...

Alight Solutions
320 S Canal St., 50th floor suite 5000, Chicago, IL, US, 60606
Last Update: 09/09/2026
Alight is a leading cloud-based human capital technology and services provider for many of the world’s largest organizations. Through the administration of employee benefits, Alight powers confident health, wealth, leaves and wellbeing decisions for 35 million people an...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Manpower Medical







Alight Solutions






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Human Resources Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Manpower Medical in 2026.
Incidents vs Human Resources Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Alight Solutions in 2026.
Incident History - Manpower Medical (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Manpower Medical cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Alight Solutions (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Alight Solutions cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Manpower Medical

Alight Solutions
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.