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. Perimeter

Perimeter

enriched
GRC & Compliance Automation

Represented by Carahsoft ↗

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

Do you work at Perimeter?

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 Perimeter'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 Perimeter 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
  • Limited

    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.

    • 17 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
  • 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 Perimeter.

  • 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 Perimeter.

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.

13 detected

Integrated by: GoodAccess, MCK Communications, Mesh Security, Native Security, Netmaker, OctoXLabs, Odaseva, ReliaQuest, SOFTwarfare, Sangfor Technologies, ThreatDefence, UncommonX, Wabbi

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.

End-to-end vendor risk management platform with AI-powered doc analysis. 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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026CVE-2026-23609 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2026-02-19CVE-2024-12236 · MEDIUM 5.5 · 2024-12-10CVE-2022-34321 · HIGH 8.2 · 2024-03-12CVE-2023-50129 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2024-01-12CVE-2023-26059 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2023-04-24CVE-2022-38212 · HIGH 7.5 · 2022-12-30CVE-2022-38211 · HIGH 7.5 · 2022-12-30CVE-2022-38203 · HIGH 7.5 · 2022-12-30CVE-2021-22815 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2022-01-29CVE-2021-22814 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2022-01-29CVE-2021-22813 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2022-01-29CVE-2021-22812 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2022-01-29CVE-2021-22811 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2022-01-29CVE-2021-22810 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2022-01-29CVE-2021-28674 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2021-07-30CVE-2008-1182 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2008-03-06

Known CVEs (17)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-2026-23609 ↗MEDIUM 5.42026

    GFI MailEssentials AI versions prior to 22.4 contain a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in the Perimeter SMTP Servers configuration page. An authenticated user can supply HTML/JavaScript in t…

  • CVE-2025-10544 ↗2025

    Unrestricted file upload vulnerability in DocAve 6.13.2, Perimeter 1.12.3, Compliance Guardian 4.7.1, and earlier versions, allowing administrator users to upload files without proper validation. An a…

  • CVE-2024-12236 ↗MEDIUM 5.52024

    A security issue exists in Vertex Gemini API for customers using VPC-SC. By utilizing a custom crafted file URI for image input, data exfiltration is possible due to requests being routed outside the …

  • CVE-2022-34321 ↗HIGH 8.22024

    Improper Authentication vulnerability in Apache Pulsar Proxy allows an attacker to connect to the /proxy-stats endpoint without authentication. The vulnerable endpoint exposes detailed statistics abou…

  • CVE-2023-50129 ↗MEDIUM 6.52024

    Missing encryption in the NFC tags of the Flient Smart Door Lock v1.0 allows attackers to create a cloned tag via brief physical proximity to the original tags, which results in an attacker gaining ac…

  • CVE-2023-26059 ↗MEDIUM 6.82023

    An issue was discovered in Nokia NetAct before 22 SP1037. On the Site Configuration Tool tab, attackers can upload a ZIP file which, when processed, exploits Stored XSS. The upload option of the Site …

  • CVE-2022-38212 ↗HIGH 7.52022

    Protections against potential Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerabilities in Esri Portal for ArcGIS versions 10.8.1 and below were not fully honored and may allow a remote, unauthenticated atta…

  • CVE-2022-38211 ↗HIGH 7.52022

    Protections against potential Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerabilities in Esri Portal for ArcGIS versions 10.9.1 and below were not fully honored and may allow a remote, unauthenticated atta…

  • CVE-2022-38203 ↗HIGH 7.52022

    Protections against potential Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerabilities in Esri Portal for ArcGIS versions 10.8.1 and below were not fully honored and may allow a remote, unauthenticated atta…

  • CVE-2021-22815 ↗MEDIUM 5.32022

    A CWE-200: Information Exposure vulnerability exists which could cause the troubleshooting archive to be accessed. Affected Products: 1-Phase Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) using NMC2 including Sm…

  • CVE-2021-22814 ↗MEDIUM 6.12022

    A CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability exists which could cause arbritrary script execution when a malicious file is read and disp…

  • CVE-2021-22813 ↗MEDIUM 6.12022

    A CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability exists that could cause arbritrary script execution when a privileged account clicks on a m…

  • CVE-2021-22812 ↗MEDIUM 6.12022

    A CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability exists that could cause arbritrary script execution when a privileged account clicks on a m…

  • CVE-2021-22811 ↗MEDIUM 6.12022

    A CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability exists that could cause script execution when the request of a privileged account accessing…

  • CVE-2021-22810 ↗MEDIUM 6.12022

    A CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability exists that could cause arbritrary script execution when a privileged account clicks on a m…

  • CVE-2021-28674 ↗MEDIUM 5.42021

    The node management page in SolarWinds Orion Platform before 2020.2.5 HF1 allows an attacker to create or delete a node (outside of the attacker's perimeter) via an account with write permissions. Thi…

  • CVE-2008-1182 ↗MEDIUM 4.32008

    Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in BSD Perimeter pfSense before 1.2 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors.

Resources & materials (2)

discovered on their site

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

  • pdfOrlando Health Case Study↗
  • pdfPerimeter Painless VRM Case Study↗

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
3rdcomply3rdRisk Solutions B.V.6clicksA-LIGNAcuity Risk ManagementAdaptive SecurityAirrivedAllgressAmpcusAmplifier SecurityAnecdotesAnitian

Products (3)

GRC & Compliance Automation

3
  • Perimeter VRMAI-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 vendor risk management platform with AI-powered doc analysis.
  • Perimeter VRM - RespondAI-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-automated RFP & security assessment response management platform.
  • Perimeter VRM MonitorAI-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 ↗
    Continuous attack surface monitoring & security rating for vendor risk mgmt.