Comparison Overview
The Perfume Shop

The Perfume Shop
Cypress House, High Wycombe, HP12 3SU, GB
Last Update: 03/12/2025
The Perfume Shop has been a leader in perfume retail sales since 1992. Starting with three stores in Birmingham Bullring, Belfast, and Milton Keynes, we have expanded to over 200 locations across the UK and Ireland, offering a wide range of designer brands, classic and ...

Lojas Renner S.A.
Av. Joaquim Porto Villanova, 401, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, BR, 91410400
Last Update: 14/09/2026
We are a fashion and lifestyle ecosystem connected to our customers through digital channels and more than 600 stores in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. From the beginning, everything we do is to enchant. This is how our story began, in 1965, conquering important milesto...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

The Perfume Shop







Lojas Renner S.A.






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for The Perfume Shop in 2026.
Incidents vs Retail Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Lojas Renner S.A. in 2026.
Incident History - The Perfume Shop (X = Date, Y = Severity)
The Perfume Shop cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Lojas Renner S.A. (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Lojas Renner S.A. cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

The Perfume Shop

Lojas Renner S.A.
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.