Comparison Overview
Medibank

Medibank
720 Bourke Street Docklands, Melbourne, Victoria, AU, 3008
Last Update: 24/09/2026
At Medibank, we are motivated by improving the health and wellbeing of all Australians. We’re passionate about building a better health system that’s centred on people and sustainable for the long term. That commitment extends to our people, too. In 2026, we were reco...

Marsh Risk
1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York, US, 10036
Last Update: 08/09/2026
We help our clients and colleagues grow — and our communities thrive — by protecting and promoting possibility. We seek better ways to manage risk and define more effective paths to the right outcome. We go beyond risk to rewards for our clients, our company, our collea...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Medibank







Marsh Risk






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)
Medibank has 89.87% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Insurance Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Marsh Risk in 2026.
Incident History - Medibank (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Medibank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Marsh Risk (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Marsh Risk cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Medibank

Marsh Risk
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.