Comparison Overview
TÜV NORD Nederland Cybersecurity

TÜV NORD Nederland Cybersecurity
Ekkersrijt 4401, Son en Breugel, 5692 DL, NL
Last Update: 02/02/2026
Cybersecurity en certificering Wij hoeven je niet uit te leggen dat digitale weerbaarheid onmisbaar is in een wereld waar dreigingen steeds groter worden. Aan je klanten, opdrachtgevers en leveranciers wil je aantoonbaar maken dat je cybersecurity serieus neemt. Maar o...

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
410 Terry Ave N, Seattle, 98019, US
Last Update: 03/10/2026
Launched in 2006, Amazon Web Services (AWS) began exposing key infrastructure services to businesses in the form of web services -- now widely known as cloud computing. The ultimate benefit of cloud computing, and AWS, is the ability to leverage a new business model and...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

TÜV NORD Nederland Cybersecurity







Amazon Web Services (AWS)






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for TÜV NORD Nederland Cybersecurity in 2026.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Amazon Web Services (AWS) has 2645.1% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - TÜV NORD Nederland Cybersecurity (X = Date, Y = Severity)
TÜV NORD Nederland Cybersecurity cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Amazon Web Services (AWS) (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Amazon Web Services (AWS) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

TÜV NORD Nederland Cybersecurity

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
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.