Comparison Overview
Zoho Books

Zoho Books
4708 HWY 71 E, Austin, US
Last Update: 03/04/2026
Zoho Books is a comprehensive, cloud-based accounting platform that streamlines your day-to-day business accounting, simplifies reconciliation and automates business workflows. With an innovation-driven approach, Zoho Books offers an interface that is packed with insigh...

Alibaba Group
969 West Wen Yi Road, Hangzhou, 311121, CN
Last Update: 12/09/2026
🌍Alibaba Group is on a mission to make it easy to do business anywhere! Guided by our passion and imagination, we’re leading the way in AI, cloud computing and e-commerce. We aim to build the future infrastructure of commerce, and we aspire to be a good company that l...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Zoho Books







Alibaba Group






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for Zoho Books in 2026.
Incidents vs Software Development Industry Avg (This Year)
Alibaba Group has 296.04% more incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incident History - Zoho Books (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Zoho Books cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - Alibaba Group (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Alibaba Group cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Zoho Books

Alibaba Group
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.