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. Egress

Egress

enriched
Email DLPEmail EncryptionEmail SecuritySecure File Sharing

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

Do you work at Egress?

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 Egress'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 Egress 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 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.

    • 84 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
    • 5 rated critical
    • No public status page found
  • 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 Egress.

  • 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 Egress.

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.

5 detected

Integrated by: Netmaker, Operant AI, Teleport, UncommonX, Zscaler

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-powered anti-phishing solution for Microsoft 365 with behavioral 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 →

Product screenshots (1)

from their products
Egress Defendauto

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

CAA enabled

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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL201820192020202120222023202420252026CVE-2026-50237 · HIGH 7.4 · 2026-08-11CVE-2026-18536 · HIGH 7.5 · 2026-08-01CVE-2026-64530 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2026-07-26CVE-2026-63867 · HIGH 8.2 · 2026-07-19CVE-2026-10647 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2026-06-30CVE-2026-52942 · HIGH 7.1 · 2026-06-24CVE-2026-53755 · HIGH 8.6 · 2026-06-23CVE-2024-27891 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2026-06-05CVE-2026-49093 · MEDIUM 6.3 · 2026-05-29CVE-2026-42398 · HIGH 7.7 · 2026-05-29CVE-2026-46153 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2026-05-28CVE-2026-8629 · HIGH 8.1 · 2026-05-15CVE-2026-42449 · HIGH 8.5 · 2026-05-08CVE-2026-43083 · CRITICAL 9.1 · 2026-05-06CVE-2026-22726 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2026-05-01CVE-2026-33773 · MEDIUM 5.8 · 2026-04-10CVE-2026-23413 · HIGH 7.8 · 2026-04-02CVE-2026-32947 · MEDIUM 4.9 · 2026-03-20CVE-2026-32946 · LOW 2.7 · 2026-03-20CVE-2026-23270 · HIGH 7.8 · 2026-03-18CVE-2026-20118 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2026-03-11CVE-2026-25598 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2026-02-10CVE-2025-64715 · MEDIUM 4.0 · 2025-11-29CVE-2025-12893 · MEDIUM 4.2 · 2025-11-25CVE-2025-59146 · HIGH 8.5 · 2025-10-09CVE-2025-20316 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2025-09-24CVE-2025-20311 · HIGH 7.4 · 2025-09-24CVE-2025-39770 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2025-09-11CVE-2025-21954 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2025-04-01CVE-2025-30162 · LOW 3.2 · 2025-03-24CVE-2025-25040 · LOW 3.3 · 2025-03-18CVE-2025-20145 · MEDIUM 5.8 · 2025-03-12CVE-2022-49636 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2025-02-26CVE-2022-43916 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2025-01-30CVE-2025-0650 · HIGH 8.1 · 2025-01-23CVE-2024-56324 · HIGH 7.1 · 2025-01-03CVE-2024-56322 · HIGH 7.2 · 2025-01-03CVE-2024-53057 · HIGH 7.8 · 2024-11-19CVE-2024-53044 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-11-19CVE-2024-52587 · HIGH 8.8 · 2024-11-19CVE-2024-47825 · MEDIUM 4.0 · 2024-10-21CVE-2024-20455 · HIGH 8.6 · 2024-09-25CVE-2024-46800 · HIGH 7.8 · 2024-09-18CVE-2024-42073 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-07-29CVE-2023-52778 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-05-21CVE-2021-47223 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-05-21CVE-2021-47222 · HIGH 7.8 · 2024-05-21CVE-2024-27010 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-05-01CVE-2024-30391 · MEDIUM 4.8 · 2024-04-12CVE-2024-26740 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-04-03CVE-2021-47175 · HIGH 7.1 · 2024-03-25CVE-2023-52523 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-03-03CVE-2024-23838 · HIGH 7.5 · 2024-01-30CVE-2023-29046 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2023-11-02CVE-2023-24548 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2023-08-29CVE-2023-29656 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2023-07-06CVE-2022-4269 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2022-12-05CVE-2022-20870 · HIGH 8.6 · 2022-10-11CVE-2022-0567 · CRITICAL 9.1 · 2022-04-20CVE-2022-22186 · HIGH 7.2 · 2022-04-14CVE-2022-22155 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2022-01-19CVE-2021-31371 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2021-10-19CVE-2021-39159 · CRITICAL 9.6 · 2021-08-25CVE-2021-3499 · MEDIUM 5.6 · 2021-06-02CVE-2021-0243 · MEDIUM 4.7 · 2021-04-23CVE-2021-0222 · HIGH 7.4 · 2021-01-15CVE-2021-0208 · HIGH 8.8 · 2021-01-15CVE-2021-0207 · HIGH 7.5 · 2021-01-15CVE-2020-1628 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2020-04-09CVE-2020-1603 · HIGH 8.6 · 2020-01-15CVE-2018-0054 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2018-10-10CVE-2018-0239 · HIGH 7.5 · 2018-04-20CVE-2018-0102 · HIGH 7.4 · 2018-01-18CVE-2017-12279 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2017-11-02CVE-2017-6130 · HIGH 7.4 · 2017-04-06CVE-2017-0305 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2017-04-06

Known CVEs (84)8 newAbout 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-2026-50237 ↗HIGH 7.4new2026

    A Server-Side Request Forgery and supply chain flaw was found in the OpenShift Console Helm catalog proxy. A namespace tenant can plant a ProjectHelmChartRepository with an arbitrary URL that the cons…

  • CVE-2026-67318 ↗new2026

    axios versions >=1.13.0 (Node.js HTTP adapter) fail to enforce the configured maxBodyLength limit on streamed request bodies when requests are sent with httpVersion: 2. Because Node's HTTP/2 request A…

  • CVE-2026-67317 ↗new2026

    axios versions 1.7.0 before 1.18.0 fail to enforce maxBodyLength for WHATWG ReadableStream request bodies in the fetch adapter when Content-Length cannot be determined. Attackers can supply unknown-le…

  • CVE-2026-18536 ↗HIGH 7.5new2026

    Data::Entropy versions before 0.010 for Perl read remote entropy sources over plain HTTP. The Data::Entropy::RawSource::RandomOrg and Data::Entropy::RawSource::RandomnumbersInfo remote sources are ac…

  • CVE-2026-64530 ↗CRITICAL 9.8new2026

    In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: cls_api: Handle TC_ACT_CONSUMED in tcf_qevent_handle tcf_classify() can return TC_ACT_CONSUMED while the skb is held by…

  • CVE-2026-63982 ↗new2026

    In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: Fix ethx:ingress -> ethy:egress -> ethx:ingress mirred loop When mirred redirects to ingress (from either ingress or eg…

  • CVE-2026-63981 ↗new2026

    In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net/sched: act_mirred: Fix blockcast recursion bypass leading to stack overflow tcf_mirred_act() checks sched_mirred_nest against …

  • CVE-2026-63867 ↗HIGH 8.2new2026

    In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: close TOCTOU race while computing rcv_wnd The MPTCP output path access locklessly the MPTCP-level ack_seq in multiple times…

  • CVE-2026-10647 ↗MEDIUM 5.32026

    The USB CDC-NCM device class (subsys/usb/device_next/class/usbd_cdc_ncm.c) ignores the return value of usbd_ep_enqueue() in its ethernet transmit callback cdc_ncm_send(). When the enqueue fails, the f…

  • CVE-2026-52942 ↗HIGH 7.12026

    In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netfilter: nf_log: validate MAC header was set before dumping it The fallback path of dump_mac_header() guards the MAC header acce…

  • CVE-2026-53755 ↗HIGH 8.62026

    Crawl4AI is an open-source LLM friendly web crawler & scraper. Prior to 0.8.9, the Docker API server applied its SSRF destination check to the crawl target URL only, not to the proxy address. An unaut…

  • CVE-2026-12539 ↗2026

    Docker Sandboxes (sbx) blocks ICMP egress with an authorizer applied only at network-creation time, and does not re-apply it to networks rebuilt from disk when the Docker daemon restarts, so a restart…

  • CVE-2026-12039 ↗2026

    Docker Sandboxes (sbx) enforces an HTTP/S-only egress allowlist but does not apply it to DNS resolution: the per-network embedded DNS server forwards any queried name to the host resolver whenever the…

  • CVE-2024-27891 ↗MEDIUM 5.32026

    On affected platforms running Arista EOS with MACsec and egress ACLs configured on the same interfaces, the ACL policies may not be enforced for packets egressing on those ports. This can cause outgoi…

  • CVE-2026-49093 ↗MEDIUM 6.32026

    Server-Side Request Forgery (CWE-918) in Kibana can allow an authenticated user with connector management privileges to bypass the operator-configured connector allowlist, causing the Kibana server to…

  • CVE-2026-42398 ↗HIGH 7.72026

    Server-Side Request Forgery (CWE-918) in Kibana allows authenticated users with connector management privileges to bypass the operator-configured connection allowlist. By configuring a Webhook connect…

  • CVE-2026-46153 ↗MEDIUM 5.52026

    In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: 8021q: delete cleared egress QoS mappings vlan_dev_set_egress_priority() currently keeps cleared egress priority mappings in the h…

  • CVE-2026-8629 ↗HIGH 8.12026

    Crabbox prior to v0.12.0 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows users with shared visibility-only access to obtain Code, WebVNC, and Egress agent tickets by sending POST requests to…

  • CVE-2026-42449 ↗HIGH 8.52026

    n8n-MCP is an MCP server that provides AI assistants access to n8n node documentation, properties, and operations. In versions 2.47.4 through 2.47.13, the SDK embedder path (N8NDocumentationMCPServer …

  • CVE-2026-43083 ↗CRITICAL 9.12026

    In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: ioam6: fix OOB and missing lock When trace->type.bit6 is set: if (trace->type.bit6) { ... queue = skb_ge…

  • …and 64 more

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
Beyond EncryptionCloudMaskGALAXKEYINKY Technology CorporationKiteworksKnowBe4MailGuardMX LayerOpenText CybersecurityPreVeilSecurelySharesmartlockr

Products (5)

Email Security

2
  • Egress DefendAI-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-powered anti-phishing solution for Microsoft 365 with behavioral detection
  • Egress Intelligent Email SecurityAI-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 email security platform for inbound/outbound threat detection & DLP

Secure File Sharing

1
  • Egress Secure WorkspaceAI-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 ↗
    Secure file sharing and collaboration platform with encryption and controls

Email Encryption

1
  • Egress ProtectAI-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 ↗
    End-to-end email encryption with DLP and access controls for Microsoft 365

Email DLP

1
  • Egress PreventAI-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 ↗
    Outbound email DLP that prevents accidental & malicious data loss via email