Comparison Overview
National Center for the Middle Market

National Center for the Middle Market
255 Fisher Hall, Columbus, 43210, US
Last Update: 19/08/2026
The National Center for the Middle Market is the nation's leading source of knowledge, leadership, and innovative research on the middle market economy, providing critical data analysis, insights, and perspectives for companies, policymakers, and other key stakeholders ...

Technical University of Munich
Arcisstraße 21, München, Munich, Bavaria, DE, 80333
Last Update: 02/04/2026
Our university combines top-class facilities for cutting-edge research with unique learning opportunities for 52,000 students. Whether our researchers are investigating the origins of life, matter and the universe or looking for solutions to the major challenges for our...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

National Center for the Middle Market







Technical University of Munich






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Research Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for National Center for the Middle Market in 2026.
Incidents vs Research Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Technical University of Munich in 2026.
Incident History - National Center for the Middle Market (X = Date, Y = Severity)
National Center for the Middle Market cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Technical University of Munich (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Technical University of Munich cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

National Center for the Middle Market

Technical University of Munich
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.