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. Rancher

Rancher

enriched
Container Security

Represented by Carahsoft ↗

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

Do you work at Rancher?

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 Rancher'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 Rancher 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.

    • 71 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
    • 12 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 Rancher.

  • 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 Rancher.

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: Apono, Aqua Security, CloudDefense.AI, Devtron, Operant AI, enclaive

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.

Kubernetes policy mgmt platform for securing & enforcing compliance across clusters 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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL201820192020202120222023202420252026CVE-2026-44937 · HIGH 8.2 · 2026-07-06CVE-2026-44936 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2026-07-06CVE-2026-44935 · CRITICAL 9.9 · 2026-07-02CVE-2026-44946 · HIGH 7.4 · 2026-06-30CVE-2026-41053 · HIGH 8.8 · 2026-06-30CVE-2026-41052 · HIGH 8.8 · 2026-06-29CVE-2025-71261 · HIGH 8.6 · 2026-06-16CVE-2026-44543 · HIGH 8.7 · 2026-05-28CVE-2026-25705 · HIGH 8.4 · 2026-05-13CVE-2025-62879 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2026-03-04CVE-2025-67601 · HIGH 8.3 · 2026-02-25CVE-2024-58269 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2025-10-29CVE-2023-32199 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2025-10-29CVE-2024-58267 · HIGH 8.0 · 2025-10-02CVE-2024-58260 · HIGH 7.6 · 2025-10-02CVE-2025-54468 · MEDIUM 4.7 · 2025-10-02CVE-2024-58259 · HIGH 8.2 · 2025-09-02CVE-2024-52281 · HIGH 8.9 · 2025-04-16CVE-2024-22036 · CRITICAL 9.1 · 2025-04-16CVE-2023-32197 · MEDIUM 6.6 · 2025-04-16CVE-2024-52280 · HIGH 7.7 · 2025-04-11CVE-2025-23391 · CRITICAL 9.1 · 2025-04-11CVE-2025-23389 · HIGH 8.4 · 2025-04-11CVE-2025-23388 · HIGH 8.2 · 2025-04-11CVE-2025-23387 · MEDIUM 5.3 · 2025-04-11CVE-2024-52282 · MEDIUM 6.2 · 2025-04-11CVE-2022-45157 · CRITICAL 9.1 · 2024-11-13CVE-2024-22030 · HIGH 8.0 · 2024-10-16CVE-2023-22650 · HIGH 8.8 · 2024-10-16CVE-2023-22649 · HIGH 8.4 · 2024-10-16CVE-2020-10676 · HIGH 8.8 · 2023-12-12CVE-2023-22648 · HIGH 8.0 · 2023-06-01CVE-2023-22647 · CRITICAL 9.9 · 2023-06-01CVE-2022-43760 · HIGH 8.4 · 2023-06-01CVE-2023-32684 · LOW 2.7 · 2023-05-30CVE-2023-22651 · CRITICAL 9.9 · 2023-05-04CVE-2022-43759 · HIGH 7.2 · 2023-02-07CVE-2022-43758 · HIGH 7.6 · 2023-02-07CVE-2022-43757 · CRITICAL 9.9 · 2023-02-07CVE-2022-43756 · MEDIUM 5.9 · 2023-02-07CVE-2022-43755 · HIGH 7.1 · 2023-02-07CVE-2022-31249 · HIGH 7.5 · 2023-02-07CVE-2022-21953 · HIGH 7.4 · 2023-02-07CVE-2022-31247 · CRITICAL 9.1 · 2022-09-07CVE-2021-36783 · CRITICAL 9.9 · 2022-09-07CVE-2021-36782 · CRITICAL 9.9 · 2022-09-07CVE-2022-21951 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2022-05-25CVE-2021-4200 · MEDIUM 5.4 · 2022-05-02CVE-2021-36784 · HIGH 7.2 · 2022-05-02CVE-2021-36778 · HIGH 7.3 · 2022-05-02CVE-2021-36776 · HIGH 8.8 · 2022-04-04CVE-2021-36775 · HIGH 8.8 · 2022-04-04CVE-2022-21947 · HIGH 8.3 · 2022-04-01CVE-2021-32001 · MEDIUM 6.5 · 2021-07-28CVE-2021-31999 · HIGH 8.8 · 2021-07-15CVE-2021-25320 · CRITICAL 9.9 · 2021-07-15CVE-2021-25318 · HIGH 8.8 · 2021-07-15CVE-2021-25313 · HIGH 7.1 · 2021-03-05CVE-2019-13209 · MEDIUM 6.1 · 2019-09-04CVE-2019-11202 · CRITICAL 9.8 · 2019-07-30CVE-2019-11881 · MEDIUM 4.7 · 2019-06-11CVE-2019-12303 · HIGH 8.8 · 2019-06-06CVE-2019-12274 · HIGH 8.8 · 2019-06-06CVE-2019-6287 · HIGH 8.1 · 2019-04-10CVE-2018-20321 · HIGH 8.8 · 2019-04-10CVE-2017-7297 · HIGH 8.8 · 2017-03-29

Known CVEs (71)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-2026-44937 ↗HIGH 8.22026

    Potential forgery of webhook requests when using a unauthenticated webhook in SUSE Rancher Fleet 0.15 before 0.15.2, 0.14 before 0.14.6, 0.13 before 0.13.11 and 0.12 before 0.12.5 could be used by rem…

  • CVE-2026-44936 ↗MEDIUM 5.02026

    Missing filtering when the helmRepoURLRegex field isn't set on a GitRepo resource in SUSE Rancher Fleet's bundle reader in 0.15 before 0.15.2, 0.14 before 0.14.6, 0.13 before 0.13.11 and 0.12 before 0…

  • CVE-2026-44934 ↗2026

    A information disclosure when DEBUG loglevel is set in SUSE Rancher AI Agent 1.0 before 1.0.2 could leak API keys or LLM response text with potential sensitive data into logfiles, allowing local attac…

  • CVE-2026-44935 ↗CRITICAL 9.92026

    Missing validation of "valuesFrom" references in Helm Deployer of SUSE Rancher Fleet 0.15 before 0.15.2, 0.14 before 0.14.6, 0.13 before 0.13.11 and 0.12 before 0.12.15 could be used by owners of one …

  • CVE-2026-44948 ↗2026

    A path traversal vulnerability was found in Fleet's ImageScan subsystem in Rancher Fleet 0.12.0 up to 0.12.16, 0.13.0 up to 0.13.12, 0.14.0 up to 0.14.7 and 0.15.0 up to 0.15.3 could be used to traver…

  • CVE-2026-44949 ↗2026

    A Rancher FleetWorkspace admission path allowed side effects to occur in the Rancher webhook handler for versions 0.7.0 up to 0.7.10, 0.8.0 up to 0.8.7, 0.9.0 up to 0.9.6 and 0.10.0 up to 0.10.7. An …

  • CVE-2026-44947 ↗2026

    A missing clean-up in the legacy Project Role Template Binding (PRTB) reconciler in Rancher versions 2.13.0 up to 2.13.7 and 2.14.0 up to 2.14.3 allowed users to retain unauthorized Pod Security Adm…

  • CVE-2026-44946 ↗HIGH 7.42026

    A SAML authentication replay vulnerability in Rancher's Assertion Consumer Service (ACS) handler did not enforce one-time use of SAML assertion, potentially allowing person in the middle attacks aga…

  • CVE-2026-41053 ↗HIGH 8.82026

    Incorrect authentication caching in the team member ship expansion of the Rancher Github authentication provider caused it granting principal access to any logged in user, in 2.13 before 2.13.6 and 2.…

  • CVE-2026-41052 ↗HIGH 8.82026

    Improper privilege handling could be used by users with Project Owner role to escalate privileges, in Rancher versions 2.14 before 2.14.2, 2.13 before 2.13.6, and 2.12 before 2.12.10.

  • CVE-2026-44939 ↗2026

    A command injection vulnerability in the Rancher Manager cluster before 2.14.2 import endpoint /v3/import/{token}_{clusterId}.yaml through unsanitized YAML parameters could allow remote attackers to …

  • CVE-2025-71261 ↗HIGH 8.62026

    An attacker with network-level access between the SUSE Virtualization and Rancher Manager in SUSE Harvester before 1.8.0 could interfere with the TLS handshake and abuse it to bypass TLS as a securi…

  • CVE-2026-44543 ↗HIGH 8.72026

    Local Path Provisioner provides a way for the Kubernetes users to utilize the local storage in each node. Prior to 0.0.36, a malicious user with permission to edit the local-path-config ConfigMap in t…

  • CVE-2026-25705 ↗HIGH 8.42026

    A vulnerability has been identified in [Rancher's Extensions](https://ranchermanager.docs.rancher.com/integrations-in-rancher/rancher-extensions) where malicious code can be injected in Rancher throug…

  • CVE-2025-62879 ↗MEDIUM 6.82026

    A vulnerability has been identified within the Rancher Backup Operator, resulting in the leakage of S3 tokens (both accessKey and secretKey) into the rancher-backup-operator pod's logs.

  • CVE-2025-67601 ↗HIGH 8.32026

    A vulnerability has been identified within Rancher Manager, where using self-signed CA certificates and passing the -skip-verify flag to the Rancher CLI login command without also passing the –cacert …

  • CVE-2024-58269 ↗MEDIUM 4.32025

    A vulnerability has been identified in Rancher Manager, where sensitive information, including secret data, cluster import URLs, and registration tokens, is exposed to any entity with access to Ranc…

  • CVE-2023-32199 ↗MEDIUM 4.32025

    A vulnerability has been identified within Rancher Manager, where after removing a custom GlobalRole that gives administrative access or the corresponding binding, the user still retains access to …

  • CVE-2024-58267 ↗HIGH 8.02025

    A vulnerability has been identified within Rancher Manager whereby the SAML authentication from the Rancher CLI tool is vulnerable to phishing attacks. The custom authentication protocol for SAML-bas…

  • CVE-2024-58260 ↗HIGH 7.62025

    A vulnerability has been identified within Rancher Manager where a missing server-side validation on the `.username` field in Rancher can allow users with update permissions on other User resources to…

  • …and 51 more

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
AI EdgeLabsAnchoreAqua SecurityBitdefenderChainguardCheckmarxCloudMatosConflueraCycodeDevtronEchoEdera

Products (1)

Container Security

1
  • SUSE Rancher PrimeAI-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 ↗
    Kubernetes policy mgmt platform for securing & enforcing compliance across clusters