Comparison Overview
Patriot EMS

Patriot EMS
2914 S. 4th Street, Ironton, 45638, US
Last Update: 02/04/2026
Patriot EMS was conceived by group of veteran EMS providers from different ambulance services and backgrounds, who became dissatisfied with the status quo of ambulance operations both public and private. Those people shared a fundamental belief that short comings in pub...

Cincinnati Children's
US
Last Update: 31/03/2026
Cincinnati Children’s, a nonprofit academic medical center established in 1883, offers services from well-child care to treatment for the most rare and complex conditions. It is the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and trains ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Patriot EMS







Cincinnati Children's






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)
Patriot EMS has 29.08% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Hospitals and Health Care Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Cincinnati Children's in 2026.
Incident History - Patriot EMS (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Patriot EMS cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Cincinnati Children's (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Cincinnati Children's cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Patriot EMS

Cincinnati Children's
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.