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. Multifactor

Multifactor

enriched
Password Management

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

Do you work at Multifactor?

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 Multifactor'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 Multifactor 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 6 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 1 of 3

    What their public record shows about handling vulnerabilities and outages.

    • 9 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
    • 1 rated critical
  • 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 Multifactor.

  • 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 Multifactor.

Data coverage: 13/100What 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 completeness13/100
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: 13

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.

6 detected

Integrated by: Dispel, Imprivata, LastPass, PKWARE, Inc., WatchGuard, validsoft

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.

Account sharing platform with credential vault and AI agent integration 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 →

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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL202120222023202420252026CVE-2026-4924 · HIGH 8.2 · 2026-04-01CVE-2026-22572 · HIGH 7.2 · 2026-03-10CVE-2025-64103 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2025-10-29CVE-2025-47941 · HIGH 7.2 · 2025-05-20CVE-2024-52586 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2024-12-10CVE-2023-25681 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2024-03-06CVE-2024-21495 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2024-02-17CVE-2023-20123 · MEDIUM 6.3 · 2023-04-05CVE-2020-27178 · HIGH 7.5 · 2020-10-16

Known CVEs (9)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-2026-4924 ↗HIGH 8.22026

    Improper authentication in the two-factor authentication (2FA) feature in Devolutions Server 2026.1.11 and earlier allows a remote attacker with valid credentials to bypass multifactor authenticati…

  • CVE-2026-22572 ↗HIGH 7.22026

    An authentication bypass using an alternate path or channel vulnerability in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer 7.6.0 through 7.6.3, FortiAnalyzer 7.4.0 through 7.4.7, FortiAnalyzer 7.2.2 through 7.2.11, FortiMan…

  • CVE-2025-64103 ↗CRITICAL 9.82025

    Starting from 2.53.6, 2.54.3, and 2.55.0, Zitadel only required multi factor authentication in case the login policy has either enabled requireMFA or requireMFAForLocalUsers. If a user has set up MFA …

  • CVE-2025-47941 ↗HIGH 7.22025

    TYPO3 is an open source, PHP based web content management system. In versions on the 12.x branch prior to 12.4.31 LTS and the 13.x branch prior to 13.4.2 LTS, the multifactor authentication (MFA) dial…

  • CVE-2024-52586 ↗MEDIUM 5.42024

    eLabFTW is an open source electronic lab notebook for research labs. A vulnerability has been found starting in version 4.6.0 and prior to version 5.1.0 that allows an attacker to bypass eLabFTW's bui…

  • CVE-2023-25681 ↗MEDIUM 5.32024

    LDAP users on IBM Spectrum Virtualize 8.5 which are configured to require multifactor authentication can still authenticate to the CIM interface using only username and password. This does not affect …

  • CVE-2024-21495 ↗MEDIUM 6.52024

    Versions of the package github.com/greenpau/caddy-security before 1.0.42 are vulnerable to Insecure Randomness due to using an insecure random number generation library which could possibly be predict…

  • CVE-2023-20123 ↗MEDIUM 6.32023

    A vulnerability in the offline access mode of Cisco Duo Two-Factor Authentication for macOS and Duo Authentication for Windows Logon and RDP could allow an unauthenticated, physical attacker to replay…

  • CVE-2020-27178 ↗HIGH 7.52020

    Apereo CAS 5.3.x before 5.3.16, 6.x before 6.1.7.2, 6.2.x before 6.2.4, and 6.3.x before 6.3.0-RC4 mishandles secret keys with Google Authenticator for multifactor authentication.

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
1PasswordAkeyless SecurityAvatierAviraBitwardenCatchProbeDashlaneDeepnet SecurityDetack GmbHElcomSoft Co. Ltd.EvidianExpressVPN

Products (1)

Password Management

1
  • MultifactorAI-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 ↗
    Account sharing platform with credential vault and AI agent integration