circumvent.io ↗ · 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 Circumvent 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 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
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.
14 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
2 rated critical
No public status page found
Limited
Disclosure posture
Do they tell you the awkward things unprompted?
checked 1 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 Circumvent.
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.
Cloud security platform for misconfiguration remediation and exposure mgmt 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 (0/5) — checked 8/13/2026
✕ Strict-Transport-Security
✕ Content-Security-Policy
✕ X-Frame-Options
✕ X-Content-Type-Options
✕ Referrer-Policy
✕ security.txt
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 (14)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.
Norton App Lock prior to version 1.3.0.329 can be susceptible to a bypass exploit. In this type of circumstance, the exploit can allow the user to circumvent the app to prevent it from locking the dev…
A vulnerability in traffic-monitoring functions in Cisco Web Security Appliance (WSA) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to circumvent Layer 4 Traffic Monitor (L4TM) functionality and byp…
MIT krb5 1.6 or later allows an authenticated kadmin with permission to add principals to an LDAP Kerberos database to circumvent a DN containership check by supplying both a "linkdn" and "containerdn…
In OpenStack Nova through 14.0.9, 15.x through 15.0.7, and 16.x through 16.0.2, by rebuilding an instance, an authenticated user may be able to circumvent the Filter Scheduler bypassing imposed filter…
Incorrect MIME type of XSS-Protection reports in Blink in Google Chrome prior to 58.0.3029.81 for Linux, Windows, and Mac, and 58.0.3029.83 for Android, allowed a remote attacker to circumvent Cross-O…
Red Hat 3scale (aka RH-3scale) API Management Platform (AMP) before 2.0.0 would permit creation of an access token without a client secret. An attacker could use this flaw to circumvent authentication…
An issue was discovered in phpMyAdmin involving the %u username replacement functionality of the SaveDir and UploadDir features. When the username substitution is configured, a specially-crafted user …
A vulnerability has been identified in Firmware variant PROFINET IO for EN100 Ethernet module : All versions < V1.04.01; Firmware variant Modbus TCP for EN100 Ethernet module : All versions < V1.11.00…
A vulnerability has been identified in Firmware variant PROFINET IO for EN100 Ethernet module : All versions < V1.04.01; Firmware variant Modbus TCP for EN100 Ethernet module : All versions < V1.11.00…
Visual truncation vulnerability in the Java Runtime Environment in Sun JDK and JRE 6 Update 2 and earlier, JDK and JRE 5.0 Update 12 and earlier, SDK and JRE 1.4.2_15 and earlier, and SDK and JRE 1.3.…
Kaspersky Anti-Virus (KAV) and Internet Security 7.0 build 125 do not properly validate certain parameters to System Service Descriptor Table (SSDT) and Shadow SSDT function handlers, which allows loc…
Aladdin eSafe Gateway versions 2.x allows a remote attacker to circumvent HTML SCRIPT filtering via a special arrangement of HTML tags which includes SCRIPT tags embedded within other SCRIPT tags.
Aladdin eSafe Gateway versions 3.0 and earlier allows a remote attacker to circumvent HTML SCRIPT filtering via the UNICODE encoding of SCRIPT tags within the HTML document.
Aladdin eSafe Gateway versions 3.0 and earlier allows a remote attacker to circumvent filtering of SCRIPT tags by embedding the scripts within certain HTML tags including (1) onload in the BODY tag, (…
CircumventAI-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 security platform for misconfiguration remediation and exposure mgmt
