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. Castle

Castle

enriched
WAF / DDoS / App Protection

castle.io ↗ · required email domain for this vendor's users

Do you work at Castle?

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 Castle'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 Castle 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 10 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 registration date not available from the registrar
    • 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.

    • 19 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
    • 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.

    • Publishes a trust center
    • 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 Castle.

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

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.

4 detected

Integrated by: AppOmni, MCK Communications, Ory Corp, keyfactor

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.

Device fingerprinting and intelligence for account security and fraud detection 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

Security headers (4/5) — 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 ↗Trust Center ↗

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, 10:40 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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018CVE-2016-1000344 · HIGH 7.4 · 2018-06-05CVE-2016-1000343 · HIGH 7.5 · 2018-06-04CVE-2016-1000342 · HIGH 7.5 · 2018-06-04CVE-2016-1000341 · MEDIUM 5.9 · 2018-06-04CVE-2016-1000340 · HIGH 7.5 · 2018-06-04CVE-2016-1000339 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2018-06-04CVE-2016-1000338 · HIGH 7.5 · 2018-06-02CVE-2018-5382 · MEDIUM 4.4 · 2018-04-16CVE-2015-6028 · HIGH 8.8 · 2017-04-10CVE-2015-6027 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2017-04-10CVE-2015-6644 · LOW 3.3 · 2016-01-07CVE-2015-7940 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2015-11-09CVE-2013-1624 · MEDIUM 4.0 · 2013-02-09CVE-2007-6721 · HIGH 10.0 · 2009-03-30CVE-2008-2214 · HIGH 10.0 · 2008-05-14CVE-2007-3098 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2007-06-07CVE-2006-2587 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2006-05-25CVE-2006-2082 · HIGH 7.5 · 2006-05-10CVE-2006-2236 · HIGH 7.6 · 2006-05-09

Known CVEs (19)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-2016-1000344 ↗HIGH 7.42018

    In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier the DHIES implementation allowed the use of ECB mode. This mode is regarded as unsafe and support for it has been removed from the provider.

  • CVE-2016-1000343 ↗HIGH 7.52018

    In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier the DSA key pair generator generates a weak private key if used with default values. If the JCA key pair generator is not explicitly initiali…

  • CVE-2016-1000342 ↗HIGH 7.52018

    In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier ECDSA does not fully validate ASN.1 encoding of signature on verification. It is possible to inject extra elements in the sequence making up …

  • CVE-2016-1000341 ↗MEDIUM 5.92018

    In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier DSA signature generation is vulnerable to timing attack. Where timings can be closely observed for the generation of signatures, the lack of …

  • CVE-2016-1000340 ↗HIGH 7.52018

    In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider versions 1.51 to 1.55, a carry propagation bug was introduced in the implementation of squaring for several raw math classes have been fixed (org.bouncycastle.math.ra…

  • CVE-2016-1000339 ↗MEDIUM 5.32018

    In the Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier the primary engine class used for AES was AESFastEngine. Due to the highly table driven approach used in the algorithm it turns out that if t…

  • CVE-2016-1000338 ↗HIGH 7.52018

    In Bouncy Castle JCE Provider version 1.55 and earlier the DSA does not fully validate ASN.1 encoding of signature on verification. It is possible to inject extra elements in the sequence making up th…

  • CVE-2018-5382 ↗MEDIUM 4.42018

    The default BKS keystore use an HMAC that is only 16 bits long, which can allow an attacker to compromise the integrity of a BKS keystore. Bouncy Castle release 1.47 changes the BKS format to a format…

  • CVE-2015-6028 ↗HIGH 8.82017

    Castle Rock Computing SNMPc before 2015-12-17 has SQL injection via the sc parameter.

  • CVE-2015-6027 ↗MEDIUM 6.12017

    Castle Rock Computing SNMPc before 2015-12-17 has XSS via SNMP.

  • CVE-2015-6644 ↗LOW 3.32016

    Bouncy Castle in Android before 5.1.1 LMY49F and 6.0 before 2016-01-01 allows attackers to obtain sensitive information via a crafted application, aka internal bug 24106146.

  • CVE-2015-7940 ↗MEDIUM 5.02015

    The Bouncy Castle Java library before 1.51 does not validate a point is withing the elliptic curve, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain private keys via a series of crafted elliptic c…

  • CVE-2013-1624 ↗MEDIUM 4.02013

    The TLS implementation in the Bouncy Castle Java library before 1.48 and C# library before 1.8 does not properly consider timing side-channel attacks on a noncompliant MAC check operation during the p…

  • CVE-2007-6721 ↗HIGH 10.02009

    The Legion of the Bouncy Castle Java Cryptography API before release 1.38, as used in Crypto Provider Package before 1.36, has unknown impact and remote attack vectors related to "a Bleichenbacher vul…

  • CVE-2008-2214 ↗HIGH 10.02008

    Stack-based buffer overflow in the Network Manager in Castle Rock Computing SNMPc 7.1 and earlier allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) or execute arbitrary code via a long comm…

  • CVE-2007-3098 ↗MEDIUM 5.02007

    The SNMPc Server (crserv.exe) process in Castle Rock Computing SNMPc before 7.0.19 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) via a crafted packet to port 165/TCP.

  • CVE-2006-2587 ↗MEDIUM 5.02006

    Buffer overflow in the WebTool HTTP server component in (1) PunkBuster before 1.229, as used by multiple products including (2) America's Army 1.228 and earlier, (3) Battlefield 1942 1.158 and earlier…

  • CVE-2006-2082 ↗HIGH 7.52006

    Directory traversal vulnerability in Quake 3 engine, as used in products including Quake3 Arena, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force, when th…

  • CVE-2006-2236 ↗HIGH 7.62006

    Buffer overflow in the Quake 3 Engine, as used by (1) ET 2.60, (2) Return to Castle Wolfenstein 1.41, and (3) Quake III Arena 1.32b allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via a long rem…

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
A10 NetworksAkamaiAlibaba CloudAllotArray NetworksAstra SecurityAvydosBaffin Bay NetworksBlackwallBlindspotCDNetworksCHEQ

Products (1)

WAF / DDoS / App Protection

1
  • Castle Device IntelligenceAI-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 ↗
    Device fingerprinting and intelligence for account security and fraud detection