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. Juniper Networks

Juniper Networks

enriched
Network Firewall (NGFW)

Represented by Exclusive Networks ↗

juniper.net ↗ · 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 Juniper Networks?

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 Juniper Networks'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 Juniper Networks 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 1996 — 30 years ago
    • Headquarters: United States
  • 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
    • 11 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
    • No bug bounty or vulnerability disclosure policy found
  • Limited

    Momentum

    Are they still shipping, or coasting?

    checked 1 of 2

    Whether this vendor is visibly still building.

    Nothing checked here yet — this is not a mark against Juniper Networks.

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.

6 detected

Integrates with: ServiceNow ↗

Integrated by: Darktrace, Gurucul, Kentik, SecurEnvoy, Zscaler

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.

Networking and SRX firewalls. 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 →

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

Domain since 1996CAA enabledHSTS 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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018CVE-2018-0010 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2018-01-11CVE-2018-0009 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2018-01-11CVE-2018-0008 · MEDIUM 6.2 · 2018-01-11CVE-2018-0007 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2018-01-11CVE-2018-0006 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2018-01-11CVE-2018-0005 · HIGH 7.4 · 2018-01-11CVE-2018-0004 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2018-01-11CVE-2018-0003 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2018-01-11CVE-2018-0002 · HIGH 8.2 · 2018-01-11CVE-2018-0001 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2018-01-11CVE-2017-10624 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10623 · HIGH 7.1 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10622 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10621 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10620 · HIGH 7.4 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10619 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10618 · MEDIUM 5.9 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10617 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10616 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10615 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10614 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10613 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10612 · HIGH 8.0 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10611 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10610 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10608 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10607 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-10606 · MEDIUM 4.4 · 2017-10-13CVE-2016-4925 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-10-13CVE-2016-4924 · HIGH 8.4 · 2017-10-13CVE-2016-4923 · HIGH 8.0 · 2017-10-13CVE-2016-4922 · HIGH 8.4 · 2017-10-13CVE-2016-4921 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-10-13CVE-2016-1265 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2017-10-13CVE-2017-2349 · CRITICAL 9.9 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2348 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2347 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2346 · MEDIUM 5.9 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2345 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2344 · HIGH 7.8 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2343 · CRITICAL 10.0 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2342 · HIGH 8.1 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2341 · HIGH 8.8 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2339 · HIGH 8.4 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2338 · HIGH 8.4 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2337 · HIGH 8.4 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2336 · CRITICAL 9.6 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2335 · HIGH 8.4 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2314 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-10605 · HIGH 8.6 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-10604 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-10603 · HIGH 7.0 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-10602 · HIGH 7.0 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-10601 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2017-07-17CVE-2017-2311 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2310 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2309 · MEDIUM 5.9 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2308 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2307 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2306 · HIGH 8.8 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2305 · HIGH 8.8 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2304 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2303 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2302 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2301 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2300 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-05-30CVE-2017-2322 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2340 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2334 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2333 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2332 · HIGH 8.8 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2331 · HIGH 7.3 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2330 · MEDIUM 6.2 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2329 · MEDIUM 6.2 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2328 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2327 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2326 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2325 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2324 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2323 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2321 · HIGH 8.6 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2320 · CRITICAL 10.0 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2319 · HIGH 8.3 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2318 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2317 · HIGH 8.6 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2316 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2315 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2313 · HIGH 7.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2017-2312 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2017-04-24CVE-2014-3814 · HIGH 7.8 · 2014-06-13CVE-2014-3813 · HIGH 7.8 · 2014-06-13CVE-2012-1038 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2013-04-03CVE-2010-2289 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2010-06-15CVE-2010-2288 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2010-06-15CVE-2009-2631 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2009-12-04CVE-2008-1180 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2008-03-06CVE-2008-1181 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2008-03-06CVE-2006-3567 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2006-07-13CVE-2006-2074 · HIGH 10.0 · 2006-04-28CVE-2004-1446 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2004-12-31

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-2018-0010 ↗MEDIUM 6.52018

    A vulnerability in the Juniper Networks Junos Space Security Director allows a user who does not have SSH access to a device to reuse the URL that was created for another user to perform SSH access. A…

  • CVE-2018-0009 ↗MEDIUM 5.42018

    On Juniper Networks SRX series devices, firewall rules configured to match custom application UUIDs starting with zeros can match all TCP traffic. Due to this issue, traffic that should have been bloc…

  • CVE-2018-0008 ↗MEDIUM 6.22018

    An unauthenticated root login may allow upon reboot when a commit script is used. A commit script allows a device administrator to execute certain instructions during commit, which is configured under…

  • CVE-2018-0007 ↗CRITICAL 9.82018

    An unauthenticated network-based attacker able to send a maliciously crafted LLDP packet to the local segment, through a local segment broadcast, may be able to cause a Junos device to enter an improp…

  • CVE-2018-0006 ↗MEDIUM 6.52018

    A high rate of VLAN authentication attempts sent from an adjacent host on the local broadcast domain can trigger high memory utilization by the BBE subscriber management daemon (bbe-smgd), and lead to…

  • CVE-2018-0005 ↗HIGH 7.42018

    QFX and EX Series switches configured to drop traffic when the MAC move limit is exceeded will forward traffic instead of dropping traffic. This can lead to denials of services or other unintended con…

  • CVE-2018-0004 ↗MEDIUM 6.52018

    A sustained sequence of different types of normal transit traffic can trigger a high CPU consumption denial of service condition in the Junos OS register and schedule software interrupt handler subsys…

  • CVE-2018-0003 ↗MEDIUM 6.52018

    A specially crafted MPLS packet received or processed by the system, on an interface configured with MPLS, will store information in the system memory. Subsequently, if this stored information is acce…

  • CVE-2018-0002 ↗HIGH 8.22018

    On SRX Series and MX Series devices with a Service PIC with any ALG enabled, a crafted TCP/IP response packet processed through the device results in memory corruption leading to a flowd daemon crash.…

  • CVE-2018-0001 ↗CRITICAL 9.82018

    A remote, unauthenticated attacker may be able to execute code by exploiting a use-after-free defect found in older versions of PHP through injection of crafted data via specific PHP URLs within the c…

  • CVE-2017-10624 ↗HIGH 7.52017

    Insufficient verification of node certificates in Juniper Networks Junos Space may allow a man-in-the-middle type of attacker to make unauthorized modifications to Space database or add nodes. Affecte…

  • CVE-2017-10623 ↗HIGH 7.12017

    Lack of authentication and authorization of cluster messages in Juniper Networks Junos Space may allow a man-in-the-middle type of attacker to intercept, inject or disrupt Junos Space cluster operatio…

  • CVE-2017-10622 ↗CRITICAL 9.82017

    An authentication bypass vulnerability in Juniper Networks Junos Space Network Management Platform may allow a remote unauthenticated network based attacker to login as any privileged user. This issue…

  • CVE-2017-10621 ↗MEDIUM 5.32017

    A denial of service vulnerability in telnetd service on Juniper Networks Junos OS allows remote unauthenticated attackers to cause a denial of service. Affected Junos OS releases are: 12.1X46 prior to…

  • CVE-2017-10620 ↗HIGH 7.42017

    Juniper Networks Junos OS on SRX series devices do not verify the HTTPS server certificate before downloading anti-virus updates. This may allow a man-in-the-middle attacker to inject bogus signatures…

  • CVE-2017-10619 ↗HIGH 7.52017

    When Express Path (formerly known as service offloading) is configured on Juniper Networks SRX1400, SRX3400, SRX3600, SRX5400, SRX5600, SRX5800 in high availability cluster configuration mode, certain…

  • CVE-2017-10618 ↗MEDIUM 5.92017

    When the 'bgp-error-tolerance' feature â€" designed to help mitigate remote session resets from malformed path attributes â€" is enabled, a BGP UPDATE containing a specifically cra…

  • CVE-2017-10617 ↗MEDIUM 5.02017

    The ifmap service that comes bundled with Contrail has an XML External Entity (XXE) vulnerability that may allow an attacker to retrieve sensitive system files. Affected releases are Juniper Networks …

  • CVE-2017-10616 ↗MEDIUM 5.32017

    The ifmap service that comes bundled with Juniper Networks Contrail releases uses hard coded credentials. Affected releases are Contrail releases 2.2 prior to 2.21.4; 3.0 prior to 3.0.3.4; 3.1 prior t…

  • CVE-2017-10615 ↗CRITICAL 9.82017

    A vulnerability in the pluggable authentication module (PAM) of Juniper Networks Junos OS may allow an unauthenticated network based attacker to potentially execute arbitrary code or crash daemons suc…

  • …and 80 more

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
ADVANTUS360AhnLabAlbariusAlgoSecAllotArray NetworksBarracudaBBT.live (BeBroadband)Cato NetworksCheck Point SoftwareCiscoClavister

Products (1)

Network Firewall (NGFW)

1
  • Juniper Networks PlatformNetwork Firewall (NGFW)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 →
    Networking and SRX firewalls.