Comparison Overview
The Pokémon Company International

The Pokémon Company International
10770 NE 8th St, Suite 1500, Bellevue, Washington, US, 98004
Last Update: 18/08/2026
Join one of the most popular children’s entertainment properties in the world! The Pokémon Company International manages the Pokémon property outside of Asia and is responsible for brand management, licensing and marketing, the Pokémon Trading Card Game, the animated TV...

TKO
N/A
Last Update: 14/09/2026
TKO Group Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: TKO) is a premium sports and entertainment company. TKO owns iconic properties including UFC, the world’s premier mixed martial arts organization; WWE, the global leader in sports entertainment; and PBR, the world’s premier bull riding or...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

The Pokémon Company International







TKO






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Avg (This Year)
The Pokémon Company International has 47.09% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Entertainment Providers Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for TKO in 2026.
Incident History - The Pokémon Company International (X = Date, Y = Severity)
The Pokémon Company International cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - TKO (X = Date, Y = Severity)
TKO cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

The Pokémon Company International

TKO
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.