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. Citrix

Citrix

enriched
Secure Access Service Edge (SASE/SSE)

citrix.com ↗ · required email domain for this vendor's users

Headquartered in United StatesHeadquarters 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 Citrix?

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 Citrix'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 Citrix 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 8 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: United States
  • Limited

    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.

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

Data coverage: 20/100What 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 completeness50/100
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: 50

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.

21 detected

Integrated by: 1Kosmos, Beyond Identity, CrowdStrike, Darktrace, Gurucul, Intermedia, Mi-Token, OctoXLabs, Plixer, Protectimus Limited, Safe Security, Seceon Inc, Secret Double Octopus, SecurEnvoy, Segura, SentryBay, StrongKey, ThreatDefence, UncommonX, Zscaler, eSentire

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.

Enterprise workspace platform providing secure access and DaaS solutions 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.

6 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

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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL2001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013CVE-2013-6011 · HIGH 7.8 · 2013-10-04CVE-2013-2940 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-12CVE-2013-2939 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-12CVE-2013-2938 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-12CVE-2013-2937 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-12CVE-2013-2936 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-12CVE-2013-2935 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-12CVE-2013-2934 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-12CVE-2013-2933 · HIGH 10.0 · 2013-09-12CVE-2013-2601 · HIGH 7.5 · 2013-09-12CVE-2013-2767 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2013-04-26CVE-2013-2263 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2013-03-19CVE-2012-5616 · LOW 1.5 · 2013-01-23CVE-2012-6314 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2012-12-27CVE-2012-5161 · HIGH 9.3 · 2012-12-27CVE-2012-3516 · MEDIUM 6.9 · 2012-11-24CVE-2012-3498 · MEDIUM 5.6 · 2012-11-24CVE-2012-3496 · MEDIUM 4.7 · 2012-11-24CVE-2012-3495 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2012-11-24CVE-2012-3494 · LOW 2.1 · 2012-11-24CVE-2012-4501 · HIGH 10.0 · 2012-10-26CVE-2012-4068 · HIGH 7.5 · 2012-07-26CVE-2012-0217 · HIGH 7.2 · 2012-06-13CVE-2011-2883 · HIGH 9.3 · 2011-07-22CVE-2011-2882 · HIGH 9.3 · 2011-07-22CVE-2011-1101 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2011-02-26CVE-2010-4566 · HIGH 9.3 · 2011-01-15CVE-2010-4515 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2010-12-10CVE-2010-2991 · HIGH 9.3 · 2010-08-12CVE-2010-2990 · HIGH 9.3 · 2010-08-12CVE-2010-2619 · LOW 1.9 · 2010-07-03CVE-2010-1425 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2010-04-16CVE-2010-0633 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2010-02-13CVE-2009-2631 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2009-12-04CVE-2009-3936 · MEDIUM 5.8 · 2009-11-13CVE-2009-3760 · HIGH 7.5 · 2009-10-22CVE-2009-3759 · HIGH 8.8 · 2009-10-22CVE-2009-3758 · HIGH 7.5 · 2009-10-22CVE-2009-3757 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2009-10-22CVE-2009-2454 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2009-07-14CVE-2009-2453 · HIGH 7.5 · 2009-07-14CVE-2009-2452 · HIGH 10.0 · 2009-07-14CVE-2009-2214 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2009-06-26CVE-2009-2213 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2009-06-26CVE-2008-6830 · MEDIUM 4.0 · 2009-06-08CVE-2008-6561 · LOW 1.9 · 2009-03-31CVE-2008-5882 · HIGH 7.5 · 2009-01-09CVE-2008-5121 · HIGH 7.2 · 2008-11-18CVE-2008-5107 · LOW 1.9 · 2008-11-17CVE-2008-4676 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2008-10-22CVE-2008-3485 · HIGH 7.2 · 2008-08-06CVE-2008-3253 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2008-07-22CVE-2008-2528 · HIGH 10.0 · 2008-06-03CVE-2008-2300 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2008-05-18CVE-2008-2299 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2008-05-18CVE-2008-0356 · HIGH 10.0 · 2008-01-19CVE-2007-6477 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2007-12-21CVE-2007-6267 · LOW 2.1 · 2007-12-07CVE-2007-6193 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2007-11-30CVE-2007-6192 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2007-11-30CVE-2007-6037 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2007-11-20CVE-2007-0011 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2007-11-05CVE-2007-4016 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2007-07-26CVE-2007-4018 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2007-07-26CVE-2007-4017 · HIGH 7.6 · 2007-07-26CVE-2007-4013 · HIGH 9.3 · 2007-07-26CVE-2007-3679 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2007-07-25CVE-2007-3625 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2007-07-09CVE-2007-2850 · HIGH 10.0 · 2007-05-24CVE-2007-1196 · HIGH 9.3 · 2007-03-03CVE-2007-0444 · HIGH 7.2 · 2007-01-25CVE-2007-0108 · MEDIUM 6.0 · 2007-01-09CVE-2006-6573 · MEDIUM 6.0 · 2006-12-15CVE-2006-6572 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2006-12-15CVE-2006-6334 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2006-12-08CVE-2006-5821 · HIGH 7.5 · 2006-11-11CVE-2006-5861 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2006-11-11CVE-2006-4846 · MEDIUM 5.1 · 2006-09-19CVE-2006-4309 · HIGH 10.0 · 2006-08-23CVE-2006-3779 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2006-07-24CVE-2005-4412 · LOW 2.1 · 2005-12-20CVE-2005-3652 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-12-17CVE-2005-3971 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2005-12-04CVE-2005-3134 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-10-05CVE-2005-0821 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-05-02CVE-2005-0822 · LOW 2.1 · 2005-05-02CVE-2004-1902 · LOW 2.1 · 2004-12-31CVE-2004-1078 · HIGH 7.5 · 2004-04-26CVE-2004-1077 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2004-04-26CVE-2003-1157 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2003-12-31CVE-2002-2426 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2002-12-31CVE-2002-0503 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-08-12CVE-2002-0504 · HIGH 7.5 · 2002-08-12CVE-2002-0502 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-08-12CVE-2002-0301 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-05-31CVE-2001-1192 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-12-13CVE-2001-0716 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-12-06CVE-2001-0908 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-11-21CVE-2001-0760 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-10-18CVE-2000-0244 · HIGH 10.0 · 2000-03-29

Known CVEs (100)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-2013-6011 ↗HIGH 7.82013

    Citrix NetScaler Application Delivery Controller (ADC) 10.0 before 10.0-76.7 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (nsconfigd crash and appliance reboot) via a crafted request.

  • CVE-2013-2940 ↗HIGH 10.02013

    Unspecified vulnerability in Citrix CloudPortal Services Manager (aka Cortex) 10.0 before Cumulative Update 3 has unknown impact and attack vectors, a different vulnerability than other CVEs listed in…

  • CVE-2013-2939 ↗HIGH 10.02013

    Unspecified vulnerability in Citrix CloudPortal Services Manager (aka Cortex) 10.0 before Cumulative Update 3 has unknown impact and attack vectors, a different vulnerability than other CVEs listed in…

  • CVE-2013-2938 ↗HIGH 10.02013

    Unspecified vulnerability in Citrix CloudPortal Services Manager (aka Cortex) 10.0 before Cumulative Update 3 has unknown impact and attack vectors, a different vulnerability than other CVEs listed in…

  • CVE-2013-2937 ↗HIGH 10.02013

    Unspecified vulnerability in Citrix CloudPortal Services Manager (aka Cortex) 10.0 before Cumulative Update 3 has unknown impact and attack vectors, related to debugging messages, a different vulnerab…

  • CVE-2013-2936 ↗HIGH 10.02013

    Unspecified vulnerability in Citrix CloudPortal Services Manager (aka Cortex) 10.0 before Cumulative Update 3 has unknown impact and attack vectors, a different vulnerability than other CVEs listed in…

  • CVE-2013-2935 ↗HIGH 10.02013

    Unspecified vulnerability in Citrix CloudPortal Services Manager (aka Cortex) 10.0 before Cumulative Update 3 has unknown impact and attack vectors, a different vulnerability than other CVEs listed in…

  • CVE-2013-2934 ↗HIGH 10.02013

    Citrix CloudPortal Services Manager (aka Cortex) 10.0 before Cumulative Update 3 does not properly restrict access to web services, which has unspecified impact and attack vectors, a different vulnera…

  • CVE-2013-2933 ↗HIGH 10.02013

    Unspecified vulnerability in Citrix CloudPortal Services Manager (aka Cortex) 10.0 before Cumulative Update 3 has unknown impact and attack vectors, a different vulnerability than other CVEs listed in…

  • CVE-2013-2601 ↗HIGH 7.52013

    The NDVM in Citrix XenClient XT before 2.1.3 and 3.x before 3.1.4 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands by using the UIVM to create a network connection.

  • CVE-2013-2767 ↗MEDIUM 5.42013

    Unspecified vulnerability in Citrix NetScaler Access Gateway Enterprise Edition (AGEE) before 9.3.62.4 and 10.x through 10.0.74.4, and NetScaler AGEE Common Criteria build before 9.3.53.6, allows remo…

  • CVE-2013-2263 ↗MEDIUM 5.02013

    Unspecified vulnerability in Citrix Access Gateway Standard Edition 5.0.x before 5.0.4.223524 allows remote attackers to access network resources via unknown attack vectors.

  • CVE-2012-5616 ↗LOW 1.52013

    Apache CloudStack 4.0.0-incubating and Citrix CloudPlatform (formerly Citrix CloudStack) before 3.0.6 stores sensitive information in the log4j.conf log file, which allows local users to obtain (1) th…

  • CVE-2012-6314 ↗MEDIUM 5.02012

    Citrix XenDesktop Virtual Desktop Agent (VDA) 5.6.x before 5.6.200, when making changes to the server-side policy that control USB redirection, does not propagate changes to the VDA, which allows auth…

  • CVE-2012-5161 ↗HIGH 9.32012

    The XML Service interface in Citrix XenApp 6.5 and 6.5 Feature Pack 1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors.

  • CVE-2012-3516 ↗MEDIUM 6.92012

    The GNTTABOP_swap_grant_ref sub-operation in the grant table hypercall in Xen 4.2 and Citrix XenServer 6.0.2 allows local guest kernels or administrators to cause a denial of service (host crash) and …

  • CVE-2012-3498 ↗MEDIUM 5.62012

    PHYSDEVOP_map_pirq in Xen 4.1 and 4.2 and Citrix XenServer 6.0.2 and earlier allows local HVM guest OS kernels to cause a denial of service (host crash) and possibly read hypervisor or guest memory vi…

  • CVE-2012-3496 ↗MEDIUM 4.72012

    XENMEM_populate_physmap in Xen 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2, and Citrix XenServer 6.0.2 and earlier, when translating paging mode is not used, allows local PV OS guest kernels to cause a denial of service (BUG t…

  • CVE-2012-3495 ↗MEDIUM 6.12012

    The physdev_get_free_pirq hypercall in arch/x86/physdev.c in Xen 4.1.x and Citrix XenServer 6.0.2 and earlier uses the return value of the get_free_pirq function as an array index without checking tha…

  • CVE-2012-3494 ↗LOW 2.12012

    The set_debugreg hypercall in include/asm-x86/debugreg.h in Xen 4.0, 4.1, and 4.2, and Citrix XenServer 6.0.2 and earlier, when running on x86-64 systems, allows local OS guest users to cause a denial…

  • …and 80 more

Resources & materials (12)

discovered on their site

Datasheets, whitepapers, and case studies found on citrix.com by the enrichment loop. Links open the original documents on the vendor's own site.

  • pdfSolution Brief Seamless Certificate Automation↗
  • pdfQuantum Ready Starts↗
  • pdfInfographic Certificate Lifecycle Automation↗
  • pdfZero Trust Network Access Citrix Secure Private Access↗
  • pdfTop 3 Features Of Citrix Secure Private Access That Help You Achieve Zero Trust↗
  • pdfCitrix Ready Partner Faq↗
  • pdfCitrix Infographic Centralized Desktop Control Vs Distributed Managed Devices↗
  • pdfCitrix Ebook Myths Vs Realities About Centralized Compute August26↗
  • pdfCitrix Ebook Centralized Desktops Vs Managed Pcs 5↗
  • pdfCitrix Secure Private Access A Better Ztna Alternative↗
  • pdfThings To Consider Regarding The Executive Order On Cybersecurity↗
  • pdfCitrix Cloud Government Fedramp Moderate Vs High↗

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
1PasswordAbsoluteAgilicusAkamaiAlibaba CloudAlkiraAmazon Web Services, Inc.AppGateArmisArray NetworksAryakaBBT.live (BeBroadband)

Products (1)

Secure Access Service Edge (SASE/SSE)

1
  • Citrix Secure the WorkAI-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 ↗
    Enterprise workspace platform providing secure access and DaaS solutions