tenable.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 Tenable 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 1997 — 29 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 2 of 3
What their public record shows about handling vulnerabilities and outages.
49 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
Data coverage: 18/100What 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.
Exposure and vulnerability management. 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
Status historyAbout this timelineEvery incident detected on this vendor's own public status page since we started watching it — sourced from the same structural check as the status chip above, checked roughly hourly (every 5 minutes while an incident is active), never inferred. A resolution requires a real check confirming "operational" again; an incident with no resolution yet shown is still ongoing as of the most recent check.
major outage · ongoingAug 13, 2026, 8:32 PM4h 20m
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 (49)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 path traversal vulnerability in Tenable Agent 11.2.0 and 11.1.3 and lower allows a privileged attacker to write arbitrary files outside the intended plugin directory, potentially leading to remote c…
Tenable Identity Exposure contains multiple unauthenticated API endpoints under /w/api/* that expose sensitive application configuration data including cleartext LDAP credentials, SAML configuration, …
An SSH misconfigurations exists in Tenable OT that led to the potential exfiltration of socket, port, and service information via the ostunnel user and GatewayPorts. This could be used to potentially …
A Command Injection vulnerability exists where an authenticated, remote attacker could execute arbitrary code on the underlying server where Tenable Security Center is hosted.
In Tenable Security Center versions prior to 6.7.0, an improper access control vulnerability exists where an authenticated user could access areas outside of their authorized scope.
In Tenable Nessus versions prior to 10.8.5 on a Windows host, it was found that a non-administrative user could overwrite arbitrary local system files with log content at SYSTEM privilege.
In Tenable Agent versions prior to 10.8.5 on a Windows host, it was found that a non-administrative user could arbitrarily delete local system files with SYSTEM privilege, potentially leading to local…
In Tenable Agent versions prior to 10.8.5 on a Windows host, it was found that a non-administrative user could overwrite arbitrary local system files with log content at SYSTEM privilege.
In Tenable Network Monitor versions prior to 6.5.1 on a Windows host, it was found that a non-administrative user could stage files in a local directory to run arbitrary code with SYSTEM privileges, p…
When installing Tenable Network Monitor to a non-default location on a Windows host, Tenable Network Monitor versions prior to 6.5.1 did not enforce secure permissions for sub-directories. This could …
An Improper Certificate Validation vulnerability exists in Tenable Security Center where an authenticated, privileged attacker could intercept email messages sent from Security Center via a rogue SMTP…
A formula injection vulnerability exists in Tenable Identity Exposure where an authenticated remote attacker with administrative privileges could manipulate application form fields in order to trick a…
An improper privilege management vulnerability exists in Tenable Security Center where an authenticated, remote attacker could view unauthorized objects and launch scans without having the required pr…
A stored cross site scripting vulnerability exists in Tenable Security Center where an authenticated, remote attacker could inject HTML code into a web application scan result page.
As a part of Tenable’s vulnerability disclosure program, a vulnerability in a Nessus plugin was identified and reported. This vulnerability could allow a malicious actor with sufficient permissions o…
An attacker can send a specially crafted message to the Wavelink Avalanche Manager, which could result in service disruption or arbitrary code execution.
Thanks to a Researcher at Tenable for finding…
A vulnerability was reported where through modifying the scan variables, an authenticated user in Tenable products, that has Scan Policy Configuration roles, could manipulate audit policy variables to…
As part of our Security Development Lifecycle, a potential privilege escalation issue was identified internally. This could allow a malicious actor with sufficient permissions to modify environment va…
Tenable Attack Surface ManagementASMAI-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 ↗
Visibility into internet-connected assets.
OT / ICS Security
1
Tenable OT ExposureOTAI-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 security for converged OT/IT environments.
Cloud-Native Application Protection (CNAPP)
1
Tenable Cloud SecurityCNAPPAI-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 posture management.
Vulnerability Management
3
Nessus ProfessionalAI-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 ↗
Vulnerability scanner for assessing networks, systems, and apps for security flaws.
Tenable NessusScannerAI-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 ↗
Vulnerability assessment scanner.
Tenable Vulnerability ManagementVuln mgmtAI-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 ↗
Unify vulnerability data to pinpoint critical exposures.
Application Security (ASPM)
1
Tenable Web App ScanningAI-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 ↗
DAST solution for web apps and APIs with automated scanning capabilities
Threat Exposure Management (CTEM)
1
Tenable OneExposure mgmtAI-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 ↗
