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. Backslash

Backslash

enriched
AI / LLM Security

backslash.security ↗ · required email domain for this vendor's users

Headquartered in IsraelHeadquarters 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 Backslash?

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 Backslash'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 Backslash 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: Israel
  • 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.

    • 18 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
    • 1 rated critical
    • Publishes a public status page
  • 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 Backslash.

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.

Verification depth0/100
Security signal0/100
Buyer feedbackno data yet (0 reviews so far)
Profile completeness25/100
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: 25

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.

AI-driven development security platform for vibe coding ecosystems 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

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

Status: operational ↗DNSSEC enabled

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, 10:16 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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL200220032004CVE-2004-2519 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2004-12-31CVE-2004-1496 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2004-12-31CVE-2004-0847 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2004-11-03CVE-2004-0377 · HIGH 10.0 · 2004-05-04CVE-2004-0173 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2004-04-15CVE-2004-0061 · HIGH 7.5 · 2004-02-17CVE-2003-0748 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2003-10-20CVE-2003-0228 · HIGH 7.5 · 2003-05-27CVE-2002-1437 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2003-04-11CVE-2002-1523 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2003-04-02CVE-2002-1504 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2003-04-02CVE-2002-2238 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-12-31CVE-2002-1209 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-11-04CVE-2002-1178 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-10-11CVE-2002-1042 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-10-04CVE-2002-1079 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-10-04CVE-2002-1054 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2002-10-04CVE-2001-0042 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-02-16

Known CVEs (18)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-2004-2519 ↗MEDIUM 5.02004

    Gattaca Server 2003 1.1.10.0 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption) via directory specifiers in the LANGUAGE parameter to (1) index.tmpl and (2) web.tmpl, such as (a) s…

  • CVE-2004-1496 ↗MEDIUM 5.02004

    Directory traversal vulnerability in Web Forums Server 1.6 and 2.0 Power Pack allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a URL containing (1) "..\" (dot dot backslash), (2) "../" (dot dot sla…

  • CVE-2004-0847 ↗CRITICAL 9.82004

    The Microsoft .NET forms authentication capability for ASP.NET allows remote attackers to bypass authentication for .aspx files in restricted directories via a request containing a (1) "\" (backslash)…

  • CVE-2004-0377 ↗HIGH 10.02004

    Buffer overflow in the win32_stat function for (1) ActiveState's ActivePerl and (2) Larry Wall's Perl before 5.8.3 allows local or remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via filenames that end…

  • CVE-2004-0173 ↗MEDIUM 5.02004

    Directory traversal vulnerability in Apache 1.3.29 and earlier, and Apache 2.0.48 and earlier, when running on Cygwin, allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a URL containing "..%5C" (dot…

  • CVE-2004-0061 ↗HIGH 7.52004

    WWW File Share Pro 2.42 and earlier allows remote attackers to bypass directory access restrictions via (1) a URL with a trailing . (dot), or (2) a URI with a leading slash or backslash character.

  • CVE-2003-0748 ↗MEDIUM 5.02003

    Directory traversal vulnerability in wgate.dll for SAP Internet Transaction Server (ITS) 4620.2.0.323011 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via ..\ (dot-dot backslash) sequences in the ~t…

  • CVE-2003-0228 ↗HIGH 7.52003

    Directory traversal vulnerability in Microsoft Windows Media Player 7.1 and Windows Media Player for Windows XP allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a skins file with a URL containing…

  • CVE-2002-1437 ↗MEDIUM 5.02003

    Directory traversal vulnerability in the web handler for Perl 5.003 on Novell NetWare 5.1 and NetWare 6 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via an HTTP request containing "..%5c" (URL-enco…

  • CVE-2002-1523 ↗MEDIUM 5.02003

    Directory traversal vulnerability in Daniel Arenz Mini Server 2.1.6 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via (1) ../ (dot-dot slash) or (2) ..\ (dot-dot backslash) sequences.

  • CVE-2002-1504 ↗MEDIUM 5.02003

    Directory traversal vulnerability in WebServer 4 Everyone 1.22 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via "..\" (dot-dot backslash) sequences in a URL.

  • CVE-2002-2238 ↗MEDIUM 5.02002

    Directory traversal vulnerability in the Kunani ODBC FTP Server 1.0.10 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a "..\" (dot dot backslash) in a GET request.

  • CVE-2002-1209 ↗MEDIUM 5.02002

    Directory traversal vulnerability in SolarWinds TFTP Server 5.0.55, and possibly earlier, allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via "..\" (dot-dot backslash) sequences in a GET request.

  • CVE-2002-1178 ↗MEDIUM 5.02002

    Directory traversal vulnerability in the CGIServlet for Jetty HTTP server before 4.1.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via ..\ (dot-dot backslash) sequences in an HTTP request to…

  • CVE-2002-1042 ↗MEDIUM 5.02002

    Directory traversal vulnerability in search engine for iPlanet web server 6.0 SP2 and 4.1 SP9, and Netscape Enterprise Server 3.6, when running on Windows platforms, allows remote attackers to read ar…

  • CVE-2002-1079 ↗MEDIUM 5.02002

    Directory traversal vulnerability in Abyss Web Server 1.0.3 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via ..\ (dot-dot backslash) sequences in an HTTP GET request.

  • CVE-2002-1054 ↗MEDIUM 6.42002

    Directory traversal vulnerability in Pablo FTP server 1.0 build 9 and earlier allows remote authenticated users to list arbitrary directories via "..\" (dot-dot backslash) sequences in a LIST command.

  • CVE-2001-0042 ↗MEDIUM 5.02001

    PHP 3.x (PHP3) on Apache 1.3.6 allows remote attackers to read arbitrary files via a modified .. (dot dot) attack containing "%5c" (encoded backslash) sequences.

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
AcuvityAdeptiv AIAdversa AIAGAT SoftwareAI EdgeLabsAI ScoreAI Security GatewayAicebergAira SecurityAirrivedAkamaiAkto

Products (1)

AI / LLM Security

1
  • Backslash Vibe CodingAI-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 ↗
    AI-driven development security platform for vibe coding ecosystems