Comparison Overview
Zoom

Zoom
55 Almaden Blvd., 6th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113, San Jose, 95113, US
Last Update: 10/09/2026
Bring teams together, reimagine workspaces, engage new audiences, and delight your customers –– all on the Zoom AI-first work platform you know and love. 💙 Zoomies help people stay connected so they can get more done together. We set out on a mission to make video com...

CACI International Inc
12021 Sunset Hills Rd, Reston, 20190, US
Last Update: 13/09/2026
At CACI International Inc (NYSE: CACI), our 25,000 talented and dynamic employees are ever vigilant in delivering distinctive expertise and technology to meet our customers’ greatest challenges in national security. We are a company of good character, relentless innovat...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

Zoom







CACI International Inc






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
Zoom has 308.16% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for CACI International Inc in 2026.
Incident History - Zoom (X = Date, Y = Severity)
Zoom cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - CACI International Inc (X = Date, Y = Severity)
CACI International Inc cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

Zoom

CACI International Inc
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.