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. Plixer

Plixer

enriched
Network Detection & Response (NDR)

plixer.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 Plixer?

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 Plixer'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 Plixer 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: United States
  • 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.

    • 13 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
    • 2 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 Plixer.

  • 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 Plixer.

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.

19 detected

Integrates with: A10 Networks ↗, Barracuda ↗, Cisco ↗, Citrix ↗, Endace ↗, Fortinet ↗, Gigamon ↗, Infoblox ↗, Microsoft ↗, Palo Alto Networks ↗, SolarWinds ↗, Sophos ↗, Splunk ↗, Tenable ↗, VMware ↗, Zscaler ↗

Integrated by: Gigamon, Gurucul, 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.

Network visibility and security insights platform for IT environments 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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL20132014201520162017201820192020202120222023CVE-2023-41263 · LOW 3.7 · 2023-10-13CVE-2023-41262 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2023-10-13CVE-2023-41261 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2023-10-13CVE-2021-28993 · HIGH 7.5 · 2021-06-30CVE-2012-1261 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2020-01-10CVE-2012-1260 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2020-01-10CVE-2012-1259 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2020-01-10CVE-2012-1258 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2020-01-10CVE-2012-3951 · HIGH 7.5 · 2012-07-31CVE-2012-3848 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2012-07-31CVE-2012-2627 · HIGH 9.4 · 2012-07-31CVE-2012-2626 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2012-07-31CVE-2012-2962 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2012-07-31

Known CVEs (13)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-2023-41263 ↗LOW 3.72023

    An issue was discovered in Plixer Scrutinizer before 19.3.1. It exposes debug logs to unauthenticated users at the /debug/ URL path. With knowledge of valid IP addresses and source types, an unauthent…

  • CVE-2023-41262 ↗CRITICAL 9.82023

    An issue was discovered in /fcgi/scrut_fcgi.fcgi in Plixer Scrutinizer before 19.3.1. The csvExportReport endpoint action generateCSV is vulnerable to SQL injection through the sorting parameter, allo…

  • CVE-2023-41261 ↗MEDIUM 5.32023

    An issue was discovered in /fcgi/scrut_fcgi.fcgi in Plixer Scrutinizer before 19.3.1. The csvExportReport endpoint action generateCSV does not require authentication and allows an unauthenticated user…

  • CVE-2021-28993 ↗HIGH 7.52021

    Plixer Scrutinizer 19.0.2 is affected by: SQL Injection. The impact is: obtain sensitive information (remote).

  • CVE-2012-1261 ↗MEDIUM 6.12020

    Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in cgi-bin/scrut_fa_exclusions.cgi in Plixer International Scrutinizer NetFlow and sFlow Analyzer 8.6.2.16204 and other versions before 9.0.1.19899 allows remo…

  • CVE-2012-1260 ↗MEDIUM 6.12020

    Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in cgi-bin/userprefs.cgi in Plixer International Scrutinizer NetFlow & sFlow Analyzer 8.6.2.16204, and possibly other versions before 9.0.1.19899, allows remot…

  • CVE-2012-1259 ↗CRITICAL 9.82020

    Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in Plixer International Scrutinizer NetFlow & sFlow Analyzer 8.6.2.16204, and possibly other versions before 9.0.1.19899, allow remote attackers to execute arbit…

  • CVE-2012-1258 ↗MEDIUM 6.52020

    cgi-bin/userprefs.cgi in Plixer International Scrutinizer NetFlow & sFlow Analyzer before 9.0.1.19899 does not validate user permissions, which allow remote attackers to add user accounts with adminis…

  • CVE-2012-3951 ↗HIGH 7.52012

    The MySQL component in Plixer Scrutinizer (aka Dell SonicWALL Scrutinizer) 9.0.1.19899 and earlier has a default password of admin for the (1) scrutinizer and (2) scrutremote accounts, which allows re…

  • CVE-2012-3848 ↗MEDIUM 4.32012

    Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the web console in Plixer Scrutinizer (aka Dell SonicWALL Scrutinizer) before 9.5.0 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML…

  • CVE-2012-2627 ↗HIGH 9.42012

    d4d/uploader.php in the web console in Plixer Scrutinizer (aka Dell SonicWALL Scrutinizer) before 9.5.0 allows remote attackers to create or overwrite arbitrary files in %PROGRAMFILES%\Scrutinizer\snm…

  • CVE-2012-2626 ↗MEDIUM 5.02012

    cgi-bin/admin.cgi in the web console in Plixer Scrutinizer (aka Dell SonicWALL Scrutinizer) before 9.5.0 does not require token authentication, which allows remote attackers to add administrative acco…

  • CVE-2012-2962 ↗MEDIUM 6.52012

    SQL injection vulnerability in d4d/statusFilter.php in Plixer Scrutinizer (aka Dell SonicWALL Scrutinizer) before 9.5.2 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the q pa…

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
AbsoluteAI EdgeLabsAireyeAllentisArray NetworksAviatrixCienaga SystemsCorelightcPacket NetworksCrunchAtlasCryptomageCyber 2.0

Products (1)

Network Detection & Response (NDR)

1
  • Plixer One 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 ↗
    Network visibility and security insights platform for IT environments