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. Devolutions

Devolutions

enriched
Identity & Access Management

devolutions.net ↗ · required email domain for this vendor's users

Headquartered in CanadaHeadquarters 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 Devolutions?

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 Devolutions'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 Devolutions 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 7 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: Canada
  • 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.

    • 100 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
    • 6 rated critical
    • Publishes a public status page
  • Not checked

    Disclosure posture

    Do they tell you the awkward things unprompted?

    checked 0 of 3

    We have not checked what this vendor discloses publicly yet.

    Nothing checked here yet — this is not a mark against Devolutions.

  • 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 Devolutions.

Data coverage: 18/100What 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 completeness38/100
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: 38

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.

17 detected

Integrates with: 1Password ↗, Bastion ↗, BeyondTrust ↗, Bitwarden ↗, Cerby ↗, CyberArk ↗, Delinea ↗, Google ↗, HashiCorp ↗, Lansweeper ↗, LastPass ↗, Microsoft ↗, Netwrix ↗, One Identity ↗, OpenVPN ↗, SonicWall ↗, VMware ↗

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.

IT productivity & security suite: PAM, remote access, and password 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 →

Product screenshots (1)

from their products
Devolutionsauto

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.

4 of 9 technical checks completed — not a score, just coverage

Infrastructure & transparency signals

Status: operational ↗

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 14, 2026, 12:17 AM).

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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL2022202320242025CVE-2025-6741 · HIGH 7.7 · 2025-07-22CVE-2025-6523 · HIGH 7.7 · 2025-07-22CVE-2025-5382 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2025-06-05CVE-2025-3768 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2025-06-05CVE-2025-0691 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2025-06-05CVE-2025-4433 · HIGH 8.8 · 2025-05-30CVE-2025-5334 · HIGH 7.5 · 2025-05-29CVE-2025-4493 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2025-05-28CVE-2025-4316 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2025-05-05CVE-2025-3517 · MEDIUM 6.3 · 2025-05-01CVE-2025-2600 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2025-03-26CVE-2025-2562 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2025-03-26CVE-2025-2528 · LOW 3.6 · 2025-03-26CVE-2025-2499 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2025-03-26CVE-2025-2280 · HIGH 8.1 · 2025-03-13CVE-2025-2278 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2025-03-13CVE-2025-2277 · HIGH 7.5 · 2025-03-13CVE-2025-1636 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2025-03-13CVE-2025-1635 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2025-03-13CVE-2025-2003 · HIGH 7.1 · 2025-03-06CVE-2025-1231 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2025-02-11CVE-2025-1193 · HIGH 8.1 · 2025-02-10CVE-2024-11621 · HIGH 8.8 · 2025-02-10CVE-2024-12196 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2024-12-04CVE-2024-12151 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2024-12-04CVE-2024-12149 · HIGH 8.1 · 2024-12-04CVE-2024-12148 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2024-12-04CVE-2024-11672 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2024-11-25CVE-2024-11671 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2024-11-25CVE-2024-11670 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2024-11-25CVE-2024-10971 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2024-11-12CVE-2024-7421 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-09-25CVE-2024-6512 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2024-09-25CVE-2024-6492 · HIGH 7.4 · 2024-07-16CVE-2024-6354 · HIGH 7.2 · 2024-06-26CVE-2024-4846 · MEDIUM 6.3 · 2024-06-25CVE-2024-6057 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2024-06-17CVE-2024-6055 · MEDIUM 4.7 · 2024-06-17CVE-2024-5072 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2024-05-17CVE-2024-3545 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2024-04-09CVE-2024-2918 · LOW 3.6 · 2024-04-09CVE-2024-2921 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2024-03-26CVE-2024-2915 · HIGH 8.8 · 2024-03-26CVE-2024-2403 · MEDIUM 5.9 · 2024-03-13CVE-2024-2241 · MEDIUM 6.3 · 2024-03-07CVE-2024-1901 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2024-03-06CVE-2024-1900 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-03-06CVE-2024-1898 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2024-03-06CVE-2024-1764 · HIGH 7.6 · 2024-03-06CVE-2024-0589 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2024-01-31CVE-2023-7047 · MEDIUM 4.4 · 2023-12-21CVE-2023-6593 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2023-12-12CVE-2023-6588 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-12-07CVE-2023-6264 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2023-11-23CVE-2023-5765 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2023-11-01CVE-2023-5358 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2023-11-01CVE-2023-5575 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-10-16CVE-2023-5240 · HIGH 7.5 · 2023-10-13CVE-2023-4417 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-08-21CVE-2023-4373 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2023-08-21CVE-2023-2400 · LOW 2.7 · 2023-06-20CVE-2023-2445 · MEDIUM 4.9 · 2023-05-02CVE-2023-2282 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-04-25CVE-2023-2257 · HIGH 7.8 · 2023-04-24CVE-2023-2118 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2023-04-22CVE-2023-1980 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-04-11CVE-2023-1939 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2023-04-11CVE-2023-1603 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-04-03CVE-2023-1580 · HIGH 7.5 · 2023-04-03CVE-2023-1574 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-04-03CVE-2023-1202 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-04-03CVE-2023-1203 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-03-11CVE-2023-1201 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-03-11CVE-2023-0953 · HIGH 8.8 · 2023-03-01CVE-2023-0952 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-03-01CVE-2023-0951 · HIGH 8.8 · 2023-03-01CVE-2023-0661 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2023-02-12CVE-2023-0463 · LOW 3.3 · 2023-01-27CVE-2022-26964 · HIGH 7.4 · 2022-12-26CVE-2022-4287 · HIGH 8.8 · 2022-12-21CVE-2022-3641 · HIGH 8.8 · 2022-12-12CVE-2022-3781 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2022-11-01CVE-2022-3182 · HIGH 7.0 · 2022-09-14CVE-2022-33996 · HIGH 8.8 · 2022-07-07CVE-2022-2316 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2022-07-06CVE-2022-2221 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2022-06-27CVE-2022-33995 · HIGH 7.5 · 2022-06-21CVE-2022-1342 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2022-06-15CVE-2022-23849 · MEDIUM 6.6 · 2022-03-03CVE-2021-42098 · HIGH 8.8 · 2021-10-18CVE-2021-36382 · LOW 2.6 · 2021-07-12CVE-2021-28157 · HIGH 7.2 · 2021-04-15CVE-2021-28048 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2021-04-15CVE-2021-23925 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2021-04-02CVE-2021-23924 · HIGH 7.5 · 2021-04-02CVE-2021-23923 · HIGH 8.1 · 2021-04-02CVE-2021-23922 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2021-04-02CVE-2021-23921 · CRITICAL 9.1 · 2021-04-02CVE-2021-28047 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2021-04-02

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-2025-6741 ↗HIGH 7.72025

    Improper access control in secure message component in Devolutions Server allows an authenticated user to steal unauthorized entries via the secure message entry attachment feature This issue affect…

  • CVE-2025-6523 ↗HIGH 7.72025

    Use of weak credentials in emergency authentication component in Devolutions Server allows an unauthenticated attacker to bypass authentication via brute forcing the short emergency codes generated by…

  • CVE-2025-5382 ↗MEDIUM 6.82025

    Improper access control in users MFA feature in Devolutions Server 2025.1.7.0 and earlier allows a user with user management permission to remove or change administrators MFA.

  • CVE-2025-3768 ↗MEDIUM 5.02025

    Improper access control in Tor network blocking feature in Devolutions Server 2025.1.10.0 and earlier allows an authenticated user to bypass the tor blocking feature when the Devolutions hosted endpoi…

  • CVE-2025-0691 ↗MEDIUM 5.02025

    Improper access control in permissions component in Devolutions Server 2025.1.10.0 and earlier allows an authenticated user to bypass the "Edit permission" permission by bypassing the client side vali…

  • CVE-2025-4433 ↗HIGH 8.82025

    Improper access control in user group management in Devolutions Server 2025.1.7.0 and earlier allows a non-administrative user with both "User Management" and "User Group Management" permissions to pe…

  • CVE-2025-5334 ↗HIGH 7.52025

    Exposure of private personal information to an unauthorized actor in the user vaults component of Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager allows an authenticated user to gain unauthorized access to private…

  • CVE-2025-4493 ↗MEDIUM 6.52025

    Improper privilege assignment in PAM JIT privilege sets in Devolutions Server allows a PAM user to perform PAM JIT requests on unauthorized groups by exploiting a user interface issue. This issue …

  • CVE-2025-4316 ↗MEDIUM 4.32025

    Improper access control in PAM feature in Devolutions Server allows a PAM user to self approve their PAM requests even if disallowed by the configured policy via specific user interface actions. …

  • CVE-2025-3517 ↗MEDIUM 6.32025

    Incorrect privilege assignment in PAM JIT elevation feature in Devolutions Server 2025.1.5.0 and earlier allows a PAM user to elevate a previously configured user configured in a PAM JIT account via f…

  • CVE-2025-2600 ↗MEDIUM 6.82025

    Improper authorization in the variable component in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager on Windows allows an authenticated user to use the ELEVATED_PASSWORD variable even though not allowed by the "All…

  • CVE-2025-2562 ↗MEDIUM 5.42025

    Insufficient logging in the autotyping feature in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager on Windows allows an authenticated user to use a stored password without generating a corresponding log event, via …

  • CVE-2025-2528 ↗LOW 3.62025

    Improper authorization in application password policy in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager on Windows allows an authenticated user to use a configuration different from the one mandated by the syste…

  • CVE-2025-2499 ↗MEDIUM 5.42025

    Client side access control bypass in the permission component in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager on Windows. An authenticated user can exploit this flaw to bypass certain permission restrictions—s…

  • CVE-2025-2280 ↗HIGH 8.12025

    Improper access control in web extension restriction feature in Devolutions Server 2024.3.4.0 and earlier allows an authenticated user to bypass the browser extension restriction feature.

  • CVE-2025-2278 ↗MEDIUM 6.52025

    Improper access control in temporary access requests and checkout requests endpoints in Devolutions Server 2024.3.13 and earlier allows an authenticated user to access information about these requests…

  • CVE-2025-2277 ↗HIGH 7.52025

    Exposure of password in web-based SSH authentication component in Devolutions Server 2024.3.13 and earlier allows a user to unadvertently leak his SSH password due to missing password masking.

  • CVE-2025-1636 ↗MEDIUM 6.52025

    Exposure of sensitive information in My Personal Credentials password history component in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager 2024.3.29 and earlier on Windows allows an authenticated user to inadverte…

  • CVE-2025-1635 ↗MEDIUM 6.52025

    Exposure of sensitive information in hub data source export feature in Devolutions Remote Desktop Manager 2024.3.29 and earlier on Windows allows a user exporting a hub data source to include his auth…

  • CVE-2025-2003 ↗HIGH 7.12025

    Incorrect authorization in PAM vaults in Devolutions Server 2024.3.12 and earlier allows an authenticated user to bypass the 'add in root' permission.

  • …and 80 more

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
1PasswordAbbey LabsAceissAirrivedAkeyless SecurityAlcorAlibaba CloudAndromeda SecurityAponoAqueraARCONArexdata

Products (1)

Identity & Access Management

1
  • DevolutionsAI-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 ↗
    IT productivity & security suite: PAM, remote access, and password mgmt.