Comparison Overview
Palo Alto Networks Unit 42
Palo Alto Networks Unit 42
3000 Tannery Way, SANTA CLARA, 95054, US
Last Update: 07/09/2026
Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 brings together world-renowned threat researchers with an elite team of incident responders and security consultants to create an intelligence-driven, response-ready organization passionate about helping customers more proactively manage cyber...
Palo Alto Networks
3000 Tannery Way, SANTA CLARA, 95054, US
Last Update: 04/10/2026
Palo Alto Networks, the global cybersecurity leader, is shaping the cloud-centric future with technology that is transforming the way people and organizations operate. Our mission is to be the cybersecurity partner of choice, protecting our digital way of life. We help ...
Compliance Ranges Comparison
Palo Alto Networks Unit 42
Palo Alto Networks
Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)
Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 has 488.24% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Computer and Network Security Industry Avg (This Year)
Palo Alto Networks has 1286.14% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Palo Alto Networks Unit 42 cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Palo Alto Networks (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Palo Alto Networks cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents
Palo Alto Networks Unit 42
Palo Alto Networks
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.