socket.dev ↗ · 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 Socket 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
Limited
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 2020 — 6 years ago
Headquarters location not disclosed on their site
Strong
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.
13 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
Nothing checked here yet — this is not a mark against Socket.
Data coverage: 15/100What 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.
Software supply chain / dependency security. 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.
8 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.
No outages recorded since we started watching (first checked Aug 13, 2026, 8:36 PM).
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 (13)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.
Apache 2 before 2.0.47, when running on an IPv6 host, allows attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption by infinite loop) when the FTP proxy server fails to create an IPv6 socket.
Integer signedness error in the Linux Socket Filter implementation (filter.c) in Linux 2.4.3-pre3 to 2.4.22-pre10 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (crash).
Common Unix Printing System (CUPS) 1.1.14 through 1.1.17 does not properly check the return values of various file and socket operations, which could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of servi…
Buffer overflow in mtr 0.46 and earlier, when installed setuid root, allows local users to access a raw socket via a long MTR_OPTIONS environment variable.
The SYN cache (syncache) and SYN cookie (syncookie) mechanism in FreeBSD 4.5 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) (1) via a SYN packet that is accepted using syncoo…
kdesu program in KDE2 (KDE before 2.2.0-6) does not properly verify the owner of a UNIX socket that is used to send a password, which allows local users to steal passwords and gain privileges.
Race condition in the creation of a Unix domain socket in GNOME esound 0.2.19 and earlier allows a local user to change the permissions of arbitrary files and directories, and gain additional privileg…
ping in iputils before 20001010, as distributed on Red Hat Linux 6.2 through 7J and other operating systems, does not drop privileges after acquiring a raw socket, which increases ping's exposure to b…
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD allow an attacker to cause a denial of service by creating a large number of socket pairs using the socketpair function, setting a large buffer size via setsockopt, then w…
The access permissions for a UNIX domain socket are ignored in Solaris 2.x and SunOS 4.x, and other BSD-based operating systems before 4.4, which could allow local users to connect to the socket and p…
Vulnerability in AIX 4.1.4 and HP-UX 10.01 and 9.05 allows local users to cause a denial of service (crash) by using a socket to connect to a port on the localhost, calling shutdown to clear the socke…
SocketAI-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 ↗
Detects and blocks malicious/vulnerable open source packages in supply chains.
