Comparison Overview
James Purdey & Sons - Richemont Group

James Purdey & Sons - Richemont Group
57-58 South Audley Street, London, undefined, W1K 2ED, GB
Last Update: 10/12/2025
Steeped in history and craftsmanship for over two centuries, holders of three Royal Warrant, James Purdey & Sons has been perfecting the art of the ‘Best’ London gun since 1814, making the finest-quality shotguns, rifles and shooting equipment. Such artistry transcends ...

Luxottica
Piazzale Cadorna, 3, Milan, 20123, IT
Last Update: 30/03/2026
#ToSeeTheBeautyOfLife™ is the vision that inspires Luxottica’s sustainable business approach and is an integral part of the Group’s strategy. It stems from a notion of universal beauty that comes to life at the intersection of personal well-being, respect for the enviro...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

James Purdey & Sons - Richemont Group







Luxottica






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Luxury Goods & Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for James Purdey & Sons - Richemont Group in 2026.
Incidents vs Luxury Goods & Jewelry Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Luxottica in 2026.
Incident History - James Purdey & Sons - Richemont Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
James Purdey & Sons - Richemont Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Luxottica (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Luxottica cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

James Purdey & Sons - Richemont Group

Luxottica
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.