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. Sophos

Sophos

enriched
Cloud-Native Application Protection (CNAPP)Managed Detection & Response (MDR)Network Firewall (NGFW)Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR)

Represented by Carahsoft ↗, Trace3 ↗

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

Headquartered in United KingdomHeadquarters 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 Sophos?

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 Sophos'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 Sophos 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 1995 — 31 years ago
    • Headquarters: United Kingdom
  • 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
    • 2 rated critical
    • 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 85 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.

36 detected

Integrates with: HitmanPro ↗, Microsoft ↗, Native Security ↗

Integrated by: AiStrike, Blackpoint Cyber, CrowdStrike, D3 Security, Darktrace, ELLIO, Exaforce, ExtraHop, Gurucul, Huntress, Loginsoft, Morphisec, OctoXLabs, Odaseva, OutThink, Panther, Plixer, Portnox, Protectimus Limited, Scytale, Seceon Inc, SecurEnvoy, SecureW2, Segura, Sekoia.io, SentinelOne, Tenzir, ThreatDefence, Torq, UncommonX, WatchGuard, eSentire, rebasoft

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: 4.1/5 (35 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 (5/5) — 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 (85 repos) ↗Domain since 1995HSTS preloaded

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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019CVE-2017-17023 · HIGH 8.1 · 2019-04-09CVE-2018-3971 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-10-25CVE-2018-3970 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2018-10-25CVE-2018-6857 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-07-09CVE-2018-6856 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-07-09CVE-2018-6855 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-07-09CVE-2018-6854 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-07-09CVE-2018-6853 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-07-09CVE-2018-6852 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-07-09CVE-2018-6851 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-07-09CVE-2018-9233 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-04-05CVE-2018-4863 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2018-04-05CVE-2018-6319 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2018-02-03CVE-2018-6318 · HIGH 7.8 · 2018-02-03CVE-2016-6217 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2018-01-27CVE-2017-18014 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2018-01-12CVE-2017-7441 · HIGH 7.8 · 2017-09-13CVE-2017-6008 · HIGH 7.8 · 2017-09-13CVE-2017-6007 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2017-09-13CVE-2012-6706 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2017-06-22CVE-2017-9523 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2017-06-09CVE-2016-9834 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2017-06-07CVE-2016-7786 · HIGH 8.8 · 2017-04-08CVE-2017-6412 · HIGH 8.1 · 2017-03-30CVE-2017-6184 · MEDIUM 4.7 · 2017-03-30CVE-2017-6183 · HIGH 7.2 · 2017-03-30CVE-2017-6182 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2017-03-30CVE-2016-9554 · HIGH 7.2 · 2017-01-28CVE-2016-9553 · HIGH 7.2 · 2017-01-28CVE-2016-7442 · MEDIUM 4.4 · 2016-10-03CVE-2016-7397 · MEDIUM 4.4 · 2016-10-03CVE-2016-6597 · HIGH 8.6 · 2016-08-10CVE-2016-3968 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2016-04-06CVE-2016-2046 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2016-02-17CVE-2015-6811 · HIGH 7.5 · 2015-09-04CVE-2014-5503 · HIGH 10.0 · 2014-10-07CVE-2014-5502 · HIGH 9.0 · 2014-10-07CVE-2014-5501 · HIGH 9.3 · 2014-10-07CVE-2014-2385 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2014-07-22CVE-2014-2005 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2014-06-25CVE-2014-2850 · HIGH 8.5 · 2014-04-11CVE-2014-2849 · HIGH 8.5 · 2014-04-11CVE-2014-2537 · HIGH 7.8 · 2014-03-18CVE-2013-2643 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2014-03-18CVE-2013-2642 · HIGH 9.3 · 2014-03-18CVE-2013-2641 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2014-03-18CVE-2014-1213 · MEDIUM 5.6 · 2014-02-11CVE-2013-5932 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-24CVE-2013-4984 · HIGH 7.2 · 2013-09-10CVE-2013-4983 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-10CVE-2010-5249 · MEDIUM 6.9 · 2012-09-07CVE-2012-4736 · LOW 3.3 · 2012-08-30CVE-2010-5177 · MEDIUM 6.2 · 2012-08-26CVE-2011-5117 · MEDIUM 6.9 · 2012-08-24CVE-2012-1462 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1461 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1459 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1458 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1456 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1453 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1450 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1446 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1443 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1442 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1438 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1431 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1430 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1428 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1427 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2012-1424 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-03-21CVE-2010-2308 · HIGH 7.2 · 2010-06-17CVE-2008-7106 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2009-08-28CVE-2008-7105 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2009-08-28CVE-2008-7104 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2009-08-28CVE-2008-6904 · HIGH 10.0 · 2009-08-06CVE-2008-6903 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2009-08-06CVE-2008-5541 · HIGH 9.3 · 2008-12-12CVE-2008-3177 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2008-07-15CVE-2008-1737 · MEDIUM 6.9 · 2008-04-30CVE-2008-0838 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2008-02-21CVE-2007-4787 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2007-09-11CVE-2007-4512 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2007-09-10CVE-2007-4577 · HIGH 7.8 · 2007-08-28CVE-2007-4578 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2007-08-28CVE-2006-6335 · HIGH 10.0 · 2006-12-13CVE-2006-4839 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2006-11-01CVE-2006-5647 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2006-11-01CVE-2006-5646 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2006-11-01CVE-2006-5645 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2006-11-01CVE-2006-0994 · HIGH 7.5 · 2006-05-10CVE-2005-4680 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-3382 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2005-10-30CVE-2005-3216 · MEDIUM 5.1 · 2005-10-14CVE-2005-2768 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-09-03CVE-2005-1530 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2005-07-19CVE-2005-1551 · MEDIUM 5.1 · 2005-05-14CVE-2004-0937 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-02-09CVE-2004-2075 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2004-12-31CVE-2004-0552 · HIGH 7.5 · 2004-11-03CVE-2004-2088 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2004-02-12

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-2017-17023 ↗HIGH 8.12019

    The Sophos UTM VPN endpoint interacts with client software provided by NPC Engineering (www.ncp-e.com). The affected client software, "Sophos IPSec Client" 11.04 is a rebranded version of NCP "Secure …

  • CVE-2018-3971 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    An exploitable arbitrary write vulnerability exists in the 0x2222CC IOCTL handler functionality of Sophos HitmanPro.Alert 3.7.6.744. A specially crafted IRP request can cause the driver to write data …

  • CVE-2018-3970 ↗MEDIUM 5.52018

    An exploitable memory disclosure vulnerability exists in the 0x222000 IOCTL handler functionality of Sophos HitmanPro.Alert 3.7.6.744. A specially crafted IRP request can cause the driver to return un…

  • CVE-2018-6857 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise before 8.00.5, SafeGuard Easy before 7.00.3, and SafeGuard LAN Crypt before 3.95.2 are vulnerable to Local Privilege Escalation via IOCTL 0x802022E0. By crafting an input b…

  • CVE-2018-6856 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise before 8.00.5, SafeGuard Easy before 7.00.3, and SafeGuard LAN Crypt before 3.95.2 are vulnerable to Local Privilege Escalation via IOCTL 0x8020601C. By crafting an input b…

  • CVE-2018-6855 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise before 8.00.5, SafeGuard Easy before 7.00.3, and SafeGuard LAN Crypt before 3.95.2 are vulnerable to Local Privilege Escalation via IOCTL 0x80202014. By crafting an input b…

  • CVE-2018-6854 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise before 8.00.5, SafeGuard Easy before 7.00.3, and SafeGuard LAN Crypt before 3.95.2 are vulnerable to Local Privilege Escalation via multiple IOCTLs, e.g., 0x8810200B, 0x881…

  • CVE-2018-6853 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise before 8.00.5, SafeGuard Easy before 7.00.3, and SafeGuard LAN Crypt before 3.95.2 are vulnerable to Local Privilege Escalation via IOCTL 0x80206024. By crafting an input b…

  • CVE-2018-6852 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise before 8.00.5, SafeGuard Easy before 7.00.3, and SafeGuard LAN Crypt before 3.95.2 are vulnerable to Local Privilege Escalation via IOCTL 0x80202298. By crafting an input b…

  • CVE-2018-6851 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    Sophos SafeGuard Enterprise before 8.00.5, SafeGuard Easy before 7.00.3, and SafeGuard LAN Crypt before 3.95.2 are vulnerable to Local Privilege Escalation via IOCTL 0x80206040. By crafting an input b…

  • CVE-2018-9233 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    Sophos Endpoint Protection 10.7 uses an unsalted SHA-1 hash for password storage in %PROGRAMDATA%\Sophos\Sophos Anti-Virus\Config\machine.xml, which makes it easier for attackers to determine a cleart…

  • CVE-2018-4863 ↗MEDIUM 5.52018

    Sophos Endpoint Protection 10.7 allows local users to bypass an intended tamper protection mechanism by deleting the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Sophos Endpoint Defense\ regis…

  • CVE-2018-6319 ↗MEDIUM 5.52018

    In Sophos Tester Tool 3.2.0.7 Beta, the driver accepts a special DeviceIoControl code that doesn't check its argument. This argument is a memory address: if a caller passes a NULL pointer or a random …

  • CVE-2018-6318 ↗HIGH 7.82018

    In Sophos Tester Tool 3.2.0.7 Beta, the driver loads (in the context of the application used to test an exploit or ransomware) the DLL using a payload that runs from NTDLL.DLL (so, it's run in userlan…

  • CVE-2016-6217 ↗MEDIUM 6.12018

    Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Sophos PureMessage for UNIX before 6.3.2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors.

  • CVE-2017-18014 ↗MEDIUM 6.12018

    An NC-25986 issue was discovered in the Logging subsystem of Sophos XG Firewall with SFOS before 17.0.3 MR3. An unauthenticated user can trigger a persistent XSS vulnerability found in the WAF log pag…

  • CVE-2017-7441 ↗HIGH 7.82017

    In Sophos SurfRight HitmanPro before 3.7.20 Build 286 (included in the HitmanPro.Alert solution and Sophos Clean), a crafted IOCTL with code 0x22E1C0 might lead to kernel data leaks. Because the leak …

  • CVE-2017-6008 ↗HIGH 7.82017

    A kernel pool overflow in the driver hitmanpro37.sys in Sophos SurfRight HitmanPro before 3.7.20 Build 286 (included in the HitmanPro.Alert solution and Sophos Clean) allows local users to escalate pr…

  • CVE-2017-6007 ↗MEDIUM 5.52017

    A kernel pool overflow in the driver hitmanpro37.sys in Sophos SurfRight HitmanPro before 3.7.20 Build 286 (included in the HitmanPro.Alert solution and Sophos Clean) allows local users to crash the O…

  • CVE-2012-6706 ↗CRITICAL 9.82017

    A VMSF_DELTA memory corruption was discovered in unrar before 5.5.5, as used in Sophos Anti-Virus Threat Detection Engine before 3.37.2 and other products, that can lead to arbitrary code execution. A…

  • …and 80 more

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
AhnLabAlgoSecArctic WolfBitdefenderBitLyftCrowdStrikeCynetGoogleGroup IBMitigaPalo Alto NetworksRAD Security

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: Broad managed-security portfolio (Intercept X endpoint, MDR, firewall, email) with mature MDR coverage.

Gaps: Standalone EDR depth is blended into managed services; buyers wanting unmanaged EDR must separate the layers.

Products (9)

Endpoint Detection & Response

3
  • Sophos EndpointEndpointAI-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 ↗
    Next-gen endpoint security.
  • Sophos Intercept XEDRAI-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 protection with EDR.
  • Sophos XDRXDRAI-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 ↗
    Extended detection and response.

Network Firewall (NGFW)

1
  • Sophos FirewallNGFWAI-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 ↗
    Next-gen firewall.

Security Orchestration, Automation & Response (SOAR)

1
  • Sophos CentralAI-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-based platform for unified mgmt of Sophos security solutions

Managed Detection & Response (MDR)

1
  • Sophos MDRMDRAI-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 ↗
    Managed detection and response.

Cloud-Native Application Protection (CNAPP)

2
  • Sophos Cloud Native 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 ↗
    Multi-cloud security platform for workloads, identities, and compliance
  • Sophos Cloud Workload ProtectionCloudAI-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 workload security.

Email Security

1
  • Sophos EmailEmailAI-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 and phishing protection.