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. Resolver

Resolver

enriched
Digital Risk Protection (DRP)GRC & Compliance Automation

Represented by Carahsoft ↗

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

Do you work at Resolver?

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 Resolver'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 Resolver 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.

    • 18 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 Resolver.

  • 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 Resolver.

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.

3 detected

Integrated by: BlueCat Networks, Gurucul, Native Security

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.

Enterprise resilience platform for risk, compliance, security & incident 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 →

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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012CVE-2012-1033 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2012-02-09CVE-2011-4313 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2011-11-29CVE-2011-1076 · MEDIUM 4.9 · 2011-10-05CVE-2009-0234 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2009-03-11CVE-2009-0233 · MEDIUM 5.8 · 2009-03-11CVE-2007-2930 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2007-09-12CVE-2007-2926 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2007-07-24CVE-2007-0981 · HIGH 7.5 · 2007-02-16CVE-2005-4685 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-4684 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2005-12-31CVE-2002-2213 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-12-31CVE-2002-2212 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-12-31CVE-2002-0029 · HIGH 7.5 · 2002-11-29CVE-2002-1146 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2002-10-11CVE-2002-0684 · HIGH 7.5 · 2002-08-12CVE-2002-0651 · HIGH 7.5 · 2002-07-03CVE-2000-0335 · HIGH 7.5 · 2000-05-03CVE-2000-1218 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2000-04-14

Known CVEs (18)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-2012-1033 ↗MEDIUM 5.02012

    The resolver in ISC BIND 9 through 9.8.1-P1 overwrites cached server names and TTL values in NS records during the processing of a response to an A record query, which allows remote attackers to trigg…

  • CVE-2011-4313 ↗MEDIUM 5.02011

    query.c in ISC BIND 9.0.x through 9.6.x, 9.4-ESV through 9.4-ESV-R5, 9.6-ESV through 9.6-ESV-R5, 9.7.0 through 9.7.4, 9.8.0 through 9.8.1, and 9.9.0a1 through 9.9.0b1 allows remote attackers to cause …

  • CVE-2011-1076 ↗MEDIUM 4.92011

    net/dns_resolver/dns_key.c in the Linux kernel before 2.6.38 allows remote DNS servers to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and OOPS) by not providing a valid response to a DNS query…

  • CVE-2009-0234 ↗MEDIUM 6.42009

    The DNS Resolver Cache Service (aka DNSCache) in Windows DNS Server in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, Server 2003 SP1 and SP2, and Server 2008 does not properly cache crafted DNS responses, which makes i…

  • CVE-2009-0233 ↗MEDIUM 5.82009

    The DNS Resolver Cache Service (aka DNSCache) in Windows DNS Server in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP4, Server 2003 SP1 and SP2, and Server 2008, when dynamic updates are enabled, does not reuse cached DNS…

  • CVE-2007-2930 ↗MEDIUM 4.32007

    The (1) NSID_SHUFFLE_ONLY and (2) NSID_USE_POOL PRNG algorithms in ISC BIND 8 before 8.4.7-P1 generate predictable DNS query identifiers when sending outgoing queries such as NOTIFY messages when answ…

  • CVE-2007-2926 ↗MEDIUM 4.32007

    ISC BIND 9 through 9.5.0a5 uses a weak random number generator during generation of DNS query ids when answering resolver questions or sending NOTIFY messages to slave name servers, which makes it eas…

  • CVE-2007-0981 ↗HIGH 7.52007

    Mozilla based browsers, including Firefox before 1.5.0.10 and 2.x before 2.0.0.2, and SeaMonkey before 1.0.8, allow remote attackers to bypass the same origin policy, steal cookies, and conduct other …

  • CVE-2005-4685 ↗MEDIUM 6.42005

    Firefox and Mozilla can associate a cookie with multiple domains when the DNS resolver has a non-root domain in its search list, which allows remote attackers to trick a user into accepting a cookie f…

  • CVE-2005-4684 ↗MEDIUM 6.42005

    Konqueror can associate a cookie with multiple domains when the DNS resolver has a non-root domain in its search list, which allows remote attackers to trick a user into accepting a cookie for a hostn…

  • CVE-2002-2213 ↗MEDIUM 5.02002

    The DNS resolver in unspecified versions of Infoblox DNS One, when resolving recursive DNS queries for arbitrary hosts, allows remote attackers to conduct DNS cache poisoning via a birthday attack tha…

  • CVE-2002-2212 ↗MEDIUM 5.02002

    The DNS resolver in unspecified versions of Fujitsu UXP/V, when resolving recursive DNS queries for arbitrary hosts, allows remote attackers to conduct DNS cache poisoning via a birthday attack that u…

  • CVE-2002-0029 ↗HIGH 7.52002

    Buffer overflows in the DNS stub resolver library in ISC BIND 4.9.2 through 4.9.10, and other derived libraries such as BSD libc and GNU glibc, allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via DNS…

  • CVE-2002-1146 ↗MEDIUM 5.02002

    The BIND 4 and BIND 8.2.x stub resolver libraries, and other libraries such as glibc 2.2.5 and earlier, libc, and libresolv, use the maximum buffer size instead of the actual size when processing a DN…

  • CVE-2002-0684 ↗HIGH 7.52002

    Buffer overflow in DNS resolver functions that perform lookup of network names and addresses, as used in BIND 4.9.8 and ported to glibc 2.2.5 and earlier, allows remote malicious DNS servers to execut…

  • CVE-2002-0651 ↗HIGH 7.52002

    Buffer overflow in the DNS resolver code used in libc, glibc, and libbind, as derived from ISC BIND, allows remote malicious DNS servers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary cod…

  • CVE-2000-0335 ↗HIGH 7.52000

    The resolver in glibc 2.1.3 uses predictable IDs, which allows a local attacker to spoof DNS query results.

  • CVE-2000-1218 ↗CRITICAL 9.82000

    The default configuration for the domain name resolver for Microsoft Windows 98, NT 4.0, 2000, and XP sets the QueryIpMatching parameter to 0, which causes Windows to accept DNS updates from hosts tha…

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
3rdcomply3rdRisk Solutions B.V.6clicksA-LIGNCyberintCybleDeepViewKymatioMuscope CybersecurityOutpost24RiskProfilerSOCRadar Cyber Intelligence Inc.

Products (2)

GRC & Compliance Automation

1
  • Resolver Enterprise Resilience SolutionsAI-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 ↗
    Enterprise resilience platform for risk, compliance, security & incident mgmt.

Digital Risk Protection (DRP)

1
  • Resolver Moderation for BrandsAI-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 ↗
    Social media content moderation service for brand protection and community safety