Comparison Overview
Spectra Logic

Spectra Logic
6285 Lookout Rd, Boulder, 80301, US
Last Update: 04/04/2026
Spectra Logic is a leader in data management and data storage solutions, providing innovative products that help businesses manage, preserve, protect, and defend their data. Our offerings include tape storage, file and object storage, and comprehensive data management s...

Lenovo
8001 Development Dr, Morrisville, 27560, US
Last Update: 01/09/2026
Lenovo is a US$83 billion revenue global technology powerhouse, ranked #196 in the Fortune Global 500, and serving millions of customers every day in 180 markets. Guided by its vision of “Smarter Technology for All”, Lenovo is executing a Hybrid AI strategy that spans P...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Spectra Logic







Lenovo






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Spectra Logic in 2026.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Lenovo has 197.03% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Spectra Logic (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Spectra Logic cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Lenovo (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Lenovo cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Spectra Logic

Lenovo
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.