radware.com ↗ · required email domain for this vendor's users
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 Radware 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 9 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 1998 — 28 years ago
Headquarters location not disclosed on their site
1 public SEC filing(s) — financials are a matter of record
Mixed
Behaviour under stress
What do they do when something goes wrong?
checked 1 of 3
What their public record shows about handling vulnerabilities and outages.
9 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
2 rated critical
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
Not checked
Momentum
Are they still shipping, or coasting?
checked 0 of 2
We have not tracked this vendor's release activity yet.
Nothing checked here yet — this is not a mark against Radware.
Data coverage: 13/100What 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.
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.
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.
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.
Application delivery and DDoS protection. 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.
6 of 9 technical checks completed — not a score, just coverage
Infrastructure & transparency signals
Domain since 1998
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.
Known CVEs (9)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.
A security vulnerability has been detected in Radware Cyber Controller up to 10.11.0. This affects an unknown part of the component HTML Report Generation. The manipulation leads to HTML injection. Re…
Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Vulnerability in Radware Alteon 34.5.4.0 vADC load-balancer allows an attacker to inject malicious scripts into the website, potentially leading to unauthorized ac…
An authenticated cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Administrative interface of Radware AlteonOS Web UI Management v33.0.4.50 allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via…
Radware Cloud Web Application Firewall (WAF) before 2025-05-07 allows remote attackers to bypass firewall filters by adding a special character to the request.
Radware Cloud Web Application Firewall (WAF) before 2025-05-07 allows remote attackers to bypass firewall filters by placing random data in the HTTP request body when using the HTTP GET method.
Radware Alteon devices with a firmware version between 31.0.0.0-31.0.3.0 are vulnerable to an adaptive-chosen ciphertext attack ("Bleichenbacher attack"). This allows an attacker to decrypt observed t…
Radware devices use the same value for the first two GCM nonces, which allows remote attackers to obtain the authentication key and spoof data via a "forbidden attack," a similar issue to CVE-2016-027…
IBM Domino 9.0.1 Fix Pack 3 Interim Fix 2 through 9.0.1 Fix Pack 5 Interim Fix 1, when using TLS and AES GCM, uses random nonce generation, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain the aut…
The radware AppWall Web Application Firewall (WAF) 1.0.2.6, with Gateway 4.6.0.2, allows remote attackers to read source code via a direct request to (1) funcs.inc, (2) defines.inc, or (3) msg.inc in …
Radware Cloud WAF ServiceAI-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 ↗
A cloud-based web application firewall service that combines traditional WAF capabilities with AI-driven behavioral analysis to protect web applications across hybrid and cloud environments.
Radware PlatformWAF / DDoS / App ProtectionAI-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 →
