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. Cisco

Cisco

enriched
Email SecurityEndpoint Detection & ResponseIdentity Threat Detection and ResponseIntrusion Detection and Prevention SystemsNetwork Firewall (NGFW)WAF / DDoS / App Protection

Represented by AHEAD ↗, CBTS ↗, Carahsoft ↗, Converge Technology Solutions ↗, Kudelski Security ↗, Long View Systems ↗, Netrix Global ↗, Presidio ↗, TD SYNNEX ↗, World Wide Technology ↗, Zones ↗, ePlus ↗

cisco.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 Cisco?

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 Cisco'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 Cisco 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 1987 — 39 years ago
    • Headquarters: United States
  • Limited

    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.

    • 95 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
    • No public status page found
  • Limited

    Disclosure posture

    Do they tell you the awkward things unprompted?

    checked 2 of 3

    How much this vendor volunteers before you have to ask.

    • No trust center found
    • 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 84 repositories
Data coverage: 20/100What 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 completeness50/100
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: 50

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.

110 detected

Integrates with: Adaptive Security ↗, Akamai ↗, Censys ↗, Cohesity ↗, CrowdStrike ↗, Cybereason ↗, Darktrace ↗, Elastic ↗, Endace ↗, ExtraHop ↗, Farsight Security ↗, Fortinet ↗, Google ↗, Ivanti ↗, Microsoft ↗, NETSCOUT ↗, Palo Alto Networks ↗, Proofpoint ↗, Qualys ↗, Radware ↗, Recorded Future ↗, Red Sift ↗, Rubrik ↗, SentinelOne ↗, ServiceNow ↗, Splunk ↗, SpyCloud ↗, Sumo Logic ↗, ThreatQuotient ↗, Trend Micro ↗, alphaMountain ↗

Integrated by: 1Kosmos, Acalvio Technologies, AiStrike, AppOmni, Arcanna.ai, Arctic Wolf, Astrix Security, BackBox, Bastille Networks, Bitsight, Blackpoint Cyber, Censys, Claroty, Critical Start, CrowdStrike, CyCognito, D3 Security, Darktrace, Dispel, Dropzone AI, ELLIO, Edge Delta, Expel, ExtraHop, Finite State, FireMon, Gigamon, GoodAccess, Group IB, Gurucul, Huntress, IDEE, Itential, JupiterOne, Kentik, Konvu, Mesh Security, MetricStream, Nagomi Security, Nile Secure, Nirmata, OPAQUE, OctoXLabs, Offroad, Operant AI, Panther, Phoenix Security, Plixer, Portnox, Prophet Security, Protectimus Limited, Reco, Red Canary, SOC Jedi.AI, Safe Security, SafeDNS, Seceon Inc, Secret Double Octopus, SecuLore, SecurEnvoy, Segura, Sekoia.io, Simbian, TCPWave, Tenzir, ThreatDefence, Torq, Tuskira, UncommonX, Upstream Security, Upwind, Wiz, ZEST Security, ZeroFox, Zscaler, eMudhra, runZero, specterops, torii

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: 4.3/5 (49 reviews) ↗

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

Vuln disclosure policy ↗GitHub (84 repos) ↗Domain since 1987CAA enabled

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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL199319941995199619971998199920002001CVE-2001-0864 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-12-06CVE-2001-0862 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-12-06CVE-2001-0861 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-12-06CVE-2001-0863 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-12-06CVE-2001-0929 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-11-28CVE-2001-0895 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-11-15CVE-2001-0669 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-10-30CVE-2001-0750 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-10-18CVE-2001-0741 · LOW 2.1 · 2001-10-18CVE-2001-0748 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-10-18CVE-2001-0783 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-10-18CVE-2001-0757 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-10-18CVE-2001-0754 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-10-18CVE-2001-0753 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-10-18CVE-2001-0752 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-10-18CVE-2001-0751 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-10-18CVE-2001-1098 · LOW 2.1 · 2001-10-10CVE-2001-1071 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-10-09CVE-2001-0650 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-09-20CVE-2001-1105 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-09-12CVE-2001-0711 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-08-31CVE-2001-1065 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-08-31CVE-2001-1064 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-08-31CVE-2001-0566 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-08-14CVE-2001-0622 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-08-14CVE-2001-0621 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-08-14CVE-2001-1097 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-07-24CVE-2001-0537 · HIGH 9.3 · 2001-07-21CVE-2001-1183 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-07-12CVE-2001-1038 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-07-11CVE-2001-0428 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-07-02CVE-2001-0444 · LOW 2.1 · 2001-07-02CVE-2001-0429 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-07-02CVE-2001-0455 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-06-27CVE-2001-0412 · HIGH 7.2 · 2001-06-18CVE-2001-0427 · HIGH 7.1 · 2001-06-18CVE-2001-0375 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-06-18CVE-2001-0288 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-05-03CVE-2000-0368 · LOW 2.1 · 2001-03-12CVE-2004-1776 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-02-28CVE-2001-1434 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-02-28CVE-2001-0055 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-02-16CVE-2001-0058 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-02-16CVE-2001-0057 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-02-16CVE-2001-0056 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-02-16CVE-2001-0041 · HIGH 7.8 · 2001-02-16CVE-2001-0020 · LOW 2.1 · 2001-02-12CVE-2001-0019 · LOW 2.1 · 2001-02-12CVE-2001-0080 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-02-12CVE-2001-1037 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2001-01-08CVE-2001-0163 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2001-01-01CVE-2001-0161 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-01-01CVE-2000-0984 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2000-12-19CVE-2000-0955 · HIGH 7.5 · 2000-12-19CVE-2000-1022 · HIGH 7.5 · 2000-12-11CVE-2000-1027 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2000-12-11CVE-2000-0700 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2000-10-20CVE-2000-0486 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2000-05-30CVE-2000-0345 · LOW 2.1 · 2000-05-03CVE-2000-0380 · HIGH 7.1 · 2000-04-26CVE-2000-0267 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2000-04-20CVE-2000-0268 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2000-04-20CVE-2000-0613 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2000-03-20CVE-1999-1100 · HIGH 7.5 · 1999-12-31CVE-1999-1465 · HIGH 7.5 · 1999-12-31CVE-1999-1464 · HIGH 7.5 · 1999-12-31CVE-1999-1175 · HIGH 7.5 · 1999-12-31CVE-1999-1126 · LOW 2.1 · 1999-12-31CVE-1999-1042 · LOW 1.2 · 1999-12-31CVE-1999-0998 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-12-16CVE-1999-1001 · LOW 2.6 · 1999-12-16CVE-1999-1000 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-12-16CVE-1999-0843 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-11-04CVE-1999-1129 · HIGH 7.5 · 1999-09-01CVE-1999-0889 · HIGH 7.5 · 1999-07-01CVE-1999-0775 · HIGH 10.0 · 1999-06-10CVE-1999-0445 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-04-01CVE-1999-0415 · HIGH 7.5 · 1999-03-11CVE-1999-0416 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-03-11CVE-1999-0430 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-03-01CVE-1999-0222 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-03-01CVE-1999-0063 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-01-11CVE-1999-0453 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-01-01CVE-1999-0162 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1998-09-01CVE-1999-0158 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1998-08-31CVE-1999-0157 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1998-08-18CVE-1999-0159 · LOW 3.5 · 1998-08-12CVE-1999-1582 · HIGH 7.5 · 1998-07-15CVE-1999-0293 · HIGH 7.5 · 1998-01-01CVE-1999-0230 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1997-12-15CVE-1999-0160 · HIGH 7.5 · 1997-10-01CVE-1999-0161 · HIGH 7.5 · 1995-07-31CVE-1999-1216 · HIGH 7.5 · 1993-04-22CVE-1999-1466 · HIGH 7.5 · 1992-12-10CVE-1999-1306 · HIGH 7.5 · 1992-12-10

Known CVEs (95)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-2001-0864 ↗HIGH 7.52001

    Cisco 12000 with IOS 12.0 and line cards based on Engine 2 does not properly handle the implicit "deny ip any any" rule in an outgoing ACL when the ACL contains exactly 448 entries, which can allow so…

  • CVE-2001-0862 ↗HIGH 7.52001

    Cisco 12000 with IOS 12.0 and line cards based on Engine 2 does not block non-initial packet fragments, which allows remote attackers to bypass the ACL.

  • CVE-2001-0861 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Cisco 12000 with IOS 12.0 and line cards based on Engine 2 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) by flooding the router with traffic that generates a large…

  • CVE-2001-0863 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Cisco 12000 with IOS 12.0 and line cards based on Engine 2 does not handle the "fragment" keyword in a compiled ACL (Turbo ACL) for packets that are sent to the router, which allows remote attackers t…

  • CVE-2001-0929 ↗HIGH 7.52001

    Cisco IOS Firewall Feature set, aka Context Based Access Control (CBAC) or Cisco Secure Integrated Software, for IOS 11.2P through 12.2T does not properly check the IP protocol type, which could allow…

  • CVE-2001-0895 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Multiple Cisco networking products allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service on the local network via a series of ARP packets sent to the router's interface that contains a different MAC add…

  • CVE-2001-0669 ↗HIGH 7.52001

    Various Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) including (1) Cisco Secure Intrusion Detection System, (2) Cisco Catalyst 6000 Intrusion Detection System Module, (3) Dragon Sensor 4.x, (4) Snort before 1.8.…

  • CVE-2001-0750 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Cisco IOS 12.1(2)T, 12.1(3)T allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (reload) via a connection to TCP ports 3100-3999, 5100-5999, 7100-7999 and 10100-10999.

  • CVE-2001-0741 ↗LOW 2.12001

    Cisco Hot Standby Routing Protocol (HSRP) allows local attackers to cause a denial of service by spoofing HSRP packets.

  • CVE-2001-0748 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Acme.Serve 1.7, as used in Cisco Secure ACS Unix and possibly other products, allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files by prepending several / (slash) characters to the URI.

  • CVE-2001-0783 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Cisco TFTP server 1.1 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a ..(dot dot) attack in the GET command.

  • CVE-2001-0757 ↗HIGH 7.52001

    Cisco 6400 Access Concentrator Node Route Processor 2 (NRP2) 12.1DC card does not properly disable access when a password has not been set for vtys, which allows remote attackers to obtain access via …

  • CVE-2001-0754 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Cisco CBOS 2.3.8 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a series of large ICMP ECHO REPLY (ping) packets, which cause it to enter ROMMON mode and stop forwarding packets.

  • CVE-2001-0753 ↗HIGH 7.52001

    Cisco CBOS 2.3.8 and earlier stores the passwords for (1) exec and (2) enable in cleartext in the NVRAM and a configuration file, which could allow unauthorized users to obtain the passwords and gain …

  • CVE-2001-0752 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Cisco CBOS 2.3.8 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via an ICMP ECHO REQUEST (ping) with the IP Record Route option set.

  • CVE-2001-0751 ↗HIGH 7.52001

    Cisco switches and routers running CBOS 2.3.8 and earlier use predictable TCP Initial Sequence Numbers (ISN), which allows remote attackers to spoof or hijack TCP connections.

  • CVE-2001-1098 ↗LOW 2.12001

    Cisco PIX firewall manager (PFM) 4.3(2)g logs the enable password in plaintext in the pfm.log file, which could allow local users to obtain the password by reading the file.

  • CVE-2001-1071 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Cisco IOS 12.2 and earlier running Cisco Discovery Protocol (CDP) allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via a flood of CDP neighbor announcements.

  • CVE-2001-0650 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    Cisco devices IOS 12.0 and earlier allow a remote attacker to cause a crash, or bad route updates, via malformed BGP updates with unrecognized transitive attribute.

  • CVE-2001-1105 ↗HIGH 7.52001

    RSA BSAFE SSL-J 3.0, 3.0.1 and 3.1, as used in Cisco iCND 2.0, caches session IDs from failed login attempts, which could allow remote attackers to bypass SSL client authentication and gain access to …

  • …and 75 more

Resources & materials (4)

discovered on their site

Datasheets, whitepapers, and case studies found on cisco.com by the enrichment loop. Links open the original documents on the vendor's own site.

  • pdfNetwork Info Security Wp↗
  • pdfIndustrial Security 3 1 DG↗
  • pdfCompliance Industrial Operations So↗
  • pdfSecure Distrib Energy Infra Sd Wan↗

Competitors (13)

full alternatives comparison →
OktaAbnormal SecurityAhnLabAkamaiAllotApozyBitdefenderComodoDarktraceFortinetOpenText CybersecurityPalo Alto NetworksTrend Micro

Products (10)

Endpoint Detection & Response

2
  • Cisco Secure EndpointEDRAI-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.
  • Cisco XDRAI-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 ↗
    XDR platform with AI-driven threat detection across network, endpoint, email, cloud

Network Firewall (NGFW)

1
  • Cisco Secure FirewallAI-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 ↗
    Enterprise firewall solution for network security and traffic control

WAF / DDoS / App Protection

1
  • Cisco Web Application and API Protection (WAAP)AI-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 ↗
    Web app, mobile app, and API protection with bot and DDoS mitigation

Secure Access Service Edge (SASE/SSE)

1
  • Cisco UmbrellaSSEAI-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 security / SSE.

Identity & Access Management

1
  • Cisco DuoMFA/AccessAI-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 →
    Multi-factor authentication and access.

Email Security

2
  • Cisco Secure EmailEmail 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 →
    Email threat defense.
  • Cisco Secure Email Threat DefenseAI-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 ↗
    Email threat protection for Microsoft 365 with advanced detection capabilities

Identity Threat Detection and Response

1
  • Cisco Identity IntelligenceAI-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 identity visibility and threat detection solution

Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems

1
  • Snort Open SourceAI-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 ↗
    Snort is an open-source network intrusion detection and prevention system that analyzes traffic in real-time to identify and block malicious activity using rule-based detection methods.