Skip to main content
0-Doubt
NewsInvestorsQuestionnairesDeveloperHelp
AnonymousSign in
0-Doubt — neutral IT/Security research
BrowseResellersCertified analystsRFI/RFP questionnairesHow trust worksHelp & FAQAPI
  1. Home/
  2. Fortinet

Fortinet

enrichedPublic company (FTNT) ↗
AI / LLM SecurityData Loss PreventionEmail SecurityEndpoint Detection & ResponseNetwork Firewall (NGFW)Secure Access Service Edge (SASE/SSE)Threat Exposure Management (CTEM)WAF / DDoS / App Protection

Represented by Carahsoft ↗, Exclusive Networks ↗, TD SYNNEX ↗, World Wide Technology ↗, ePlus ↗

fortinet.com ↗ · required email domain for this vendor's users

Headquartered in United StatesHeadquarters countrySourced only from this vendor's own published headquarters address (schema.org structured data on their site) — never guessed from domain TLD. Source ↗

Do you work at Fortinet?

This profile was built from public sources and hasn't been claimed yet. Claiming it lets you correct what's wrong and add details only you can confirm — and marks that information as vendor-verified for buyers.

Free, and it does not affect ranking, placement, or comparison results. The first person verified on Fortinet's email domain becomes the profile admin.

Claim this profileAlready have an account?

Trust profileHow to read thisFive separate questions a buyer actually asks, each answered with its own evidence and a link to the source. There is deliberately no overall score: a single number invites comparison it cannot support, and would mostly reflect how much of Fortinet we have managed to scan rather than anything about the vendor.

Not checked means we have not looked yet, and is never counted against a vendor. Limited means we did look, but found only one line of evidence — enough to report, not enough to corroborate.

checked 11 of 16 signals
  • Limited

    Independently verified

    Has anyone other than the vendor confirmed this?

    checked 3 of 4

    Nothing here has been confirmed by an independent third party yet.

    • No third-party certifications found
    • Profile not claimed by the vendor
  • Strong

    Operating durability

    Is this a real, durable business?

    checked 3 of 4

    How long this vendor has been operating, and who stands behind them.

    • Domain registered 2001 — 25 years ago
    • Headquarters: United States
    • 1 public SEC filing(s) — financials are a matter of record
  • Mixed

    Behaviour under stress

    What do they do when something goes wrong?

    checked 2 of 3

    What their public record shows about handling vulnerabilities and outages.

    • 100 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
    • 6 rated critical
    • No public status page found
  • Strong

    Disclosure posture

    Do they tell you the awkward things unprompted?

    checked 2 of 3

    How much this vendor volunteers before you have to ask.

    • Publishes a trust center
    • Publishes a vulnerability disclosure policy
  • Limited

    Momentum

    Are they still shipping, or coasting?

    checked 1 of 2

    Whether this vendor is visibly still building.

    • Public GitHub org with 80 repositories
Data coverage: 23/100What this measures (and doesn't)

Not a quality rating or endorsement — a measure of how much verified, disclosed data we actually have about this vendor. A low score usually means "we don't have much verified information yet," not "this is a bad vendor." Never used to sort or rank vendor lists.

Verification depth0/100
Security signal0/100
Buyer feedbackno data yet (0 reviews so far)
Profile completeness63/100
claim · HQ · materials · screenshots · integrations · certifications · security check

The platform admin controls the formula's weights.

Data coverage profileHow to read thisThe same four components behind the data coverage score above, shaped instead of listed — a vendor strong on verification but thin on buyer feedback looks visibly different from one that's the other way around. Security and feedback plot at the neutral midpoint (50) when there's no data yet (no products tracked, no reviews), matching how the actual score itself treats missing data — not a guess either way.

VerificationSecurityFeedbackCompletenessThis vendor — Verification: 0This vendor — Security: 0This vendor — Feedback: no data yetThis vendor — Completeness: 63

IntegrationsUI-12 — integration graphDetected from this vendor's own published integration/partner pages by the enrichment loop — each entry links the exact page it was found on. Directional: "integrates with" is claimed by this vendor; "integrated by" is claimed by the other vendor's site. Coverage grows as the scan progresses.

49 detected

Integrated by: AiStrike, BackBox, Bitsight, Blackpoint Cyber, Cisco, Claroty, Critical Start, D3 Security, ELLIO, Exaforce, Expel, ExtraHop, FireMon, Gigamon, Gurucul, Huntress, Kentik, Loginsoft, Mindflow, Nagomi Security, Nozomi Networks, OctoXLabs, Offroad, Plixer, Portnox, Qevlar AI, Realm.Security, Red Canary, Ridge Security, Saiflow, Seceon Inc, SecurEnvoy, Segura, Sekoia.io, Simbian, Stream.Security, Tenzir, ThreatDefence, Torq, UncommonX, WatchGuard, Waterfall Security, Wiz, ZeroFox, Zscaler, eSentire, ipqualityscore, isMalicious, runZero

Buyer reviewsUI-14 — verified-buyer reviewsWritten only by domain-verified buyers at other companies, attributed to their company domain (never their identity), and moderated. Buyer-sourced opinion, clearly separate from the neutral catalog facts above — and never an input to search or comparison ordering.

verified buyers only

No buyer reviews yet.

Reputation ratingUI-20 — anonymous ratingA single anonymous 5-star signal from buyers, resellers, and analysts who've engaged with this vendor — separate from the domain-attributed reviews above. No rater identity is ever shown, not even at company level.

anonymous

No ratings in this window yet.

External ratingsUI-22 — third-party ratingsAggregate rating and review count pulled directly from the source site's own published data — never the review text itself, which belongs to that site. Links go to the real page so you can read the actual reviews there.

via third-party review sites
PeerSpot: 3.9/5 (19 reviews) ↗

Product screenshots (2)

from their products
Fortinet FortiSASEautoFortinet FortiAIauto

Security & trust signalsAbout these signalsCertifications are keyword-matched from the vendor's own public pages (each claim links to its source — verify directly before relying on it). Security headers are checked live against the vendor's homepage, re-checked every 90 days. Both are independent, automated signals, not a vendor-submitted or audited claim, and are not blended into a single score.

9 of 9 technical checks completed — not a score, just coverage

Security headers (4/5) — checked 8/13/2026

  • ✓ Strict-Transport-Security
  • ✓ Content-Security-Policy
  • ✓ X-Frame-Options
  • ✓ X-Content-Type-Options
  • ✕ Referrer-Policy
  • ✓ security.txt ↗

Infrastructure & transparency signals

Trust Center ↗Vuln disclosure policy ↗GitHub (80 repos) ↗Domain since 2001

CVE severity over timeUI-24 — CVE severity timelineEvery known CVE with a disclosure date and severity, plotted by when it was published — lets you see whether disclosures are trending toward more or less severe, not just a raw count. Same NVD-sourced, name-matched data as the list below.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017CVE-2017-7338 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-05-27CVE-2017-7337 · CRITICAL 9.1 · 2017-05-27CVE-2017-3134 · HIGH 7.2 · 2017-05-27CVE-2017-3129 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2017-05-27CVE-2017-3126 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2017-05-27CVE-2017-3128 · MEDIUM 4.8 · 2017-05-23CVE-2016-7542 · MEDIUM 4.9 · 2017-03-30CVE-2016-7541 · MEDIUM 5.9 · 2017-03-30CVE-2016-8495 · HIGH 7.4 · 2017-02-13CVE-2016-8492 · MEDIUM 5.9 · 2017-02-08CVE-2016-8491 · CRITICAL 9.1 · 2017-02-01CVE-2015-7363 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2016-10-07CVE-2016-7561 · HIGH 7.2 · 2016-10-05CVE-2016-7560 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2016-10-05CVE-2016-4969 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2016-09-21CVE-2016-4968 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2016-09-21CVE-2016-4967 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2016-09-21CVE-2016-4966 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2016-09-21CVE-2016-4965 · HIGH 8.8 · 2016-09-21CVE-2016-4573 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2016-09-09CVE-2016-6909 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2016-08-24CVE-2016-3195 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2016-08-20CVE-2016-3194 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2016-08-20CVE-2016-3193 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2016-08-20CVE-2016-3196 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2016-08-05CVE-2016-5092 · MEDIUM 4.9 · 2016-07-13CVE-2016-4066 · HIGH 8.8 · 2016-07-13CVE-2015-7360 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2016-05-26CVE-2016-1909 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2016-01-16CVE-2015-7362 · HIGH 7.8 · 2016-01-09CVE-2015-8038 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-11-03CVE-2015-8037 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-11-03CVE-2015-5737 · HIGH 7.2 · 2015-09-03CVE-2015-5736 · HIGH 7.2 · 2015-09-03CVE-2015-5735 · HIGH 7.2 · 2015-09-03CVE-2015-4077 · LOW 2.1 · 2015-09-03CVE-2015-5965 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2015-08-11CVE-2015-3626 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-08-11CVE-2015-3620 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-05-12CVE-2015-1880 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-05-12CVE-2014-8619 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-05-12CVE-2014-8618 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-05-12CVE-2014-8616 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-05-12CVE-2015-2281 · HIGH 7.5 · 2015-03-19CVE-2014-8617 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-03-05CVE-2015-1571 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-02-11CVE-2015-1570 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-02-11CVE-2015-1569 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-02-11CVE-2015-1459 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2015-02-03CVE-2015-1458 · MEDIUM 6.9 · 2015-02-03CVE-2015-1457 · MEDIUM 4.9 · 2015-02-03CVE-2015-1456 · MEDIUM 4.0 · 2015-02-03CVE-2015-1455 · HIGH 7.5 · 2015-02-03CVE-2015-1453 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2015-02-02CVE-2015-1452 · HIGH 7.8 · 2015-02-02CVE-2015-1451 · LOW 3.5 · 2015-02-02CVE-2014-8582 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2014-11-02CVE-2014-2336 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2014-10-31CVE-2014-2335 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2014-10-31CVE-2014-2334 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2014-10-31CVE-2014-0351 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2014-09-10CVE-2014-2216 · HIGH 7.5 · 2014-08-25CVE-2014-3115 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2014-05-08CVE-2013-7182 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2014-02-04CVE-2013-7181 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2014-02-04CVE-2013-6826 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2013-11-20CVE-2013-1414 · MEDIUM 5.1 · 2013-07-08CVE-2013-4604 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2013-06-25CVE-2013-1471 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2013-02-05CVE-2012-4948 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2012-11-14CVE-2012-1462 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1461 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1459 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1456 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1454 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1453 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1447 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1446 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1445 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1444 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1443 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1442 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1440 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1439 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1425 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1423 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1420 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2008-7161 · HIGH 7.5 · 2009-09-04CVE-2009-1262 · HIGH 7.2 · 2009-04-08CVE-2008-5531 · HIGH 9.3 · 2008-12-12CVE-2008-0779 · HIGH 7.2 · 2008-02-14CVE-2006-3838 · HIGH 10.0 · 2006-07-27CVE-2006-3222 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2006-06-24CVE-2006-1966 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2006-04-21CVE-2005-3058 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-3057 · HIGH 10.0 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-4570 · HIGH 7.8 · 2005-12-29CVE-2005-3400 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2005-11-01CVE-2005-3221 · MEDIUM 5.1 · 2005-10-14CVE-2005-1837 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-06-01

Known CVEs (100)About this listSourced from the public NVD database, matched by vendor name. This is a name-based match, not exact version tracking — always check the linked NVD record for affected versions before drawing conclusions. “New” means published within the last 30 days. “Actively exploited” means CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog confirms real-world exploitation, not just a theoretical severity score.

RSS ⇢
  • CVE-2017-7338 ↗HIGH 7.52017

    A password management vulnerability in Fortinet FortiPortal versions 4.0.0 and below allows an attacker to carry out information disclosure via the FortiAnalyzer Management View.

  • CVE-2017-7337 ↗CRITICAL 9.12017

    An improper Access Control vulnerability in Fortinet FortiPortal versions 4.0.0 and below allows an attacker to interact with unauthorized VDOMs or enumerate other ADOMs via another user's stolen sess…

  • CVE-2017-3134 ↗HIGH 7.22017

    An escalation of privilege vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWLC-SD versions 8.2.4 and below allows attacker to gain root access via the CLI command 'copy running-config'.

  • CVE-2017-3129 ↗MEDIUM 6.12017

    A Cross-Site Scripting vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWeb versions 5.7.1 and below allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via an improperly sanitized POST parameter in the FortiWeb S…

  • CVE-2017-3126 ↗MEDIUM 6.12017

    An Open Redirect vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 5.4.0 through 5.4.2 and FortiManager 5.4.0 through 5.4.2 allows attacker to execute unauthorized code or commands via the next parameter.

  • CVE-2017-3128 ↗MEDIUM 4.82017

    A stored XSS (Cross-Site-Scripting) vulnerability in Fortinet FortiOS allows attackers to execute unauthorized code or commands via the policy global-label parameter.

  • CVE-2016-7542 ↗MEDIUM 4.92017

    A read-only administrator on Fortinet devices with FortiOS 5.2.x before 5.2.10 GA and 5.4.x before 5.4.2 GA may have access to read-write administrators password hashes (not including super-admins) st…

  • CVE-2016-7541 ↗MEDIUM 5.92017

    Long lived sessions in Fortinet FortiGate devices with FortiOS 5.x before 5.4.0 could violate a security policy during IPS signature updates when the FortiGate's IPSengine is configured in flow mode. …

  • CVE-2016-8495 ↗HIGH 7.42017

    An improper certificate validation vulnerability in Fortinet FortiManager 5.0.6 through 5.2.7 and 5.4.0 through 5.4.1 allows remote attacker to spoof a trusted entity by using a man-in-the-middle (MIT…

  • CVE-2016-8492 ↗MEDIUM 5.92017

    The implementation of an ANSI X9.31 RNG in Fortinet FortiGate allows attackers to gain unauthorized read access to data handled by the device via IPSec/TLS decryption.

  • CVE-2016-8491 ↗CRITICAL 9.12017

    The presence of a hardcoded account named 'core' in Fortinet FortiWLC allows attackers to gain unauthorized read/write access via a remote shell.

  • CVE-2015-7363 ↗MEDIUM 5.42016

    Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the advanced settings page in Fortinet FortiManager 5.x before 5.0.12 and 5.2.x before 5.2.3, in hardware models with a hard disk, and FortiAnalyzer 5.x bef…

  • CVE-2016-7561 ↗HIGH 7.22016

    Fortinet FortiWLC 6.1-2-29 and earlier, 7.0-9-1, 7.0-10-0, 8.0-5-0, 8.1-2-0, and 8.2-4-0 allow administrators to obtain sensitive user credentials by reading the pam.log file.

  • CVE-2016-7560 ↗CRITICAL 9.82016

    The rsyncd server in Fortinet FortiWLC 6.1-2-29 and earlier, 7.0-9-1, 7.0-10-0, 8.0-5-0, 8.1-2-0, and 8.2-4-0 has a hardcoded rsync account, which allows remote attackers to read or write to arbitrary…

  • CVE-2016-4969 ↗MEDIUM 6.12016

    Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Fortinet FortiWan (formerly AscernLink) before 4.2.5 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the IP parameter to script/statistic…

  • CVE-2016-4968 ↗MEDIUM 6.52016

    The linkreport/tmp/admin_global page in Fortinet FortiWan (formerly AscernLink) before 4.2.5 allows remote authenticated users to discover administrator cookies via a GET request.

  • CVE-2016-4967 ↗MEDIUM 6.52016

    Fortinet FortiWan (formerly AscernLink) before 4.2.5 allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive information from (1) a backup of the device configuration via script/cfg_show.php or (2) PCAP…

  • CVE-2016-4966 ↗MEDIUM 6.52016

    The diagnosis_control.php page in Fortinet FortiWan (formerly AscernLink) before 4.2.5 allows remote authenticated users to download PCAP files via vectors related to the UserName GET parameter.

  • CVE-2016-4965 ↗HIGH 8.82016

    Fortinet FortiWan (formerly AscernLink) before 4.2.5 allows remote authenticated users with access to the nslookup functionality to execute arbitrary commands with root privileges via the graph parame…

  • CVE-2016-4573 ↗CRITICAL 9.82016

    Fortinet FortiSwitch FSW-108D-POE, FSW-124D, FSW-124D-POE, FSW-224D-POE, FSW-224D-FPOE, FSW-248D-POE, FSW-248D-FPOE, FSW-424D, FSW-424D-POE, FSW-424D-FPOE, FSW-448D, FSW-448D-POE, FSW-448D-FPOE, FSW-5…

  • …and 80 more

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
AkamaiAlibaba CloudArray NetworksCato NetworksCiscoComodoCrowdStrikeCyCraft TechnologyESETF5Palo Alto NetworksTrend Micro

Strengths & gaps by category

neutral · vendor-sourced

Drawn from this vendor's own public materials and authored to keep category questionnaires balanced. Gaps reflect capabilities not emphasized in public materials, not rankings.

Endpoint Detection & Response (source)

Strengths: FortiEDR offers real-time response and tight integration with the Fortinet Security Fabric.

Gaps: Best value is realized within the Fortinet ecosystem; standalone EDR positioning is less prominent than network security.

Products (12)

Endpoint Detection & Response

2
  • FortiEDREDRAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →
    Endpoint detection and response.
  • Fortinet FortiClientAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →source ↗
    Unified endpoint agent providing ZTNA, VPN, EPP, and fabric integration

SIEM

1
  • FortiSIEMSIEMAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →
    Security information and event management.

Network Firewall (NGFW)

1
  • Fortinet Secure NetworkingAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →source ↗
    Converged network security platform with NGFW, SD-WAN, SASE, and SecOps

WAF / DDoS / App Protection

1
  • Fortinet FortiWebAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →source ↗
    WAF protecting web apps and APIs from OWASP Top 10, bots, and DDoS attacks

Cloud-Native Application Protection (CNAPP)

1
  • FortiCNAPPCNAPPAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →
    Cloud-native application protection platform.

Secure Access Service Edge (SASE/SSE)

2
  • FortiSASESASEAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →
    Cloud-delivered SASE.
  • Fortinet FortiSASEAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →source ↗
    Cloud-delivered SASE combining SSE and SD-WAN for hybrid workforce access

Email Security

1
  • Fortinet FortiMail Email SecurityAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →source ↗
    AI-powered email security platform protecting against phishing, BEC, and ATO

AI / LLM Security

1
  • Fortinet FortiAIAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →source ↗
    AI-powered security platform for threat detection, automation, and AI protection

Threat Exposure Management (CTEM)

1
  • Fortinet FortiReconAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →source ↗
    SaaS-based threat exposure management for attack surface and risk mitigation

Data Loss Prevention

1
  • Fortinet FortiDLPAI-generated from public sourcesAuto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials. Not verified by the vendor or an analyst. Check the freshness indicator.Lowest independence — unverified. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →source ↗
    Cloud-native endpoint DLP with insider risk mgmt and user education