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 Sonar 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
Limited
Operating durability
Is this a real, durable business?
checked 2 of 4
How long this vendor has been operating, and who stands behind them.
Headquarters location not disclosed on their site
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.
8 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
1 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 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 Sonar.
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.
Code quality and static analysis (SonarQube). 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.
7 of 9 technical checks completed — not a score, just coverage
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 (8)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.
Jenkins GitHub Pull Request Coverage Status Plugin 2.2.0 and earlier stores the GitHub Personal Access Token, Sonar access token and Sonar password unencrypted in its global configuration file on the …
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Sonar Gerrit Plugin 377.v8f3808963dc5 and earlier allows attackers to have Jenkins connect to Gerrit servers (previously configured by Jenk…
In SonarQube 8.4.2.36762, an external attacker can achieve authentication bypass through SonarScanner. With an empty value for the -D sonar.login option, anonymous authentication is forced. This allow…
Jenkins Sonar Quality Gates Plugin 1.3.1 and earlier transmits configured credentials in plain text as part of its global Jenkins configuration form, potentially resulting in their exposure.
The Symantec SONAR component, prior to 12.0.2, may be susceptible to a tamper protection bypass vulnerability which could potentially allow an attacker to circumvent the existing tamper protection in …
Jenkins Sonar Gerrit Plugin stores credentials unencrypted in job config.xml files on the Jenkins master where they can be viewed by users with Extended Read permission, or access to the master file s…
The Jenkins Plugin for SonarQube 3.7 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive information (cleartext passwords) by reading the value in the sonar.sonarPassword parameter from …
Resources & materials (2)
discovered on their site
Datasheets, whitepapers, and case studies found on sonarsource.com by the enrichment loop. Links open the original documents on the vendor's own site.
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.
Strengths: Deep code quality plus security (SAST/SCA) with a mature IDE, server, and cloud footprint.
Gaps:Heritage is code quality; supply-chain and runtime concerns are less central than code analysis.
Products (3)
Application Security (ASPM)
2
SonarSource SonarQubeAI-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 ↗
Code quality and security platform with SAST, SCA, and AI-powered remediation
SonarSource SonarQube CloudAI-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 SAST platform for code quality and security analysis
AI / LLM Security
1
SonarSource SonarSweepAI-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 ↗
Service to remediate, secure, and optimize coding datasets for LLM training
