Comparison Overview
Parsons Corporation

Parsons Corporation
14291 Park Meadow Dr, Chantilly, Virginia, US, 20151
Last Update: 13/09/2026
Founded in 1944, Parsons Corporation, a digitally enabled solutions provider, is focused on creating the future of the defense, intelligence, and critical infrastructure markets. From Earth to outer space, we deliver tomorrow’s solutions today. Equipped with the capabil...

Fugro
Veurse Achterweg 10, Leidschendam, 2264 SG, NL
Last Update: 13/09/2026
We are the world’s leading Geo-data specialist, collecting and analysing comprehensive information about the Earth and the structures built upon it. Through integrated data acquisition, analysis and advice, we unlock insights from Geo-data to help our clients design, bu...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Parsons Corporation







Fugro






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Parsons Corporation in 2026.
Incidents vs Civil Engineering Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Fugro in 2026.
Incident History - Parsons Corporation (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Parsons Corporation cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Fugro (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Fugro cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Parsons Corporation

Fugro
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.