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. SUSE

SUSE

enriched
Container Security

suse.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 SUSE?

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 SUSE'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 SUSE 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
  • 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.

    • 99 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 SUSE.

  • 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 SUSE.

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

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.

Open source Zero Trust container security platform for Kubernetes 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.

LOWMEDIUMHIGHCRITICAL20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010CVE-2010-2532 · HIGH 7.2 · 2010-09-04CVE-2010-1507 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2010-09-04CVE-2010-1325 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2010-09-04CVE-2010-0230 · HIGH 7.5 · 2010-01-23CVE-2009-1297 · MEDIUM 4.4 · 2009-10-23CVE-2009-2707 · MEDIUM 4.9 · 2009-09-18CVE-2009-1648 · HIGH 7.5 · 2009-07-05CVE-2008-2025 · MEDIUM 4.3 · 2009-04-09CVE-2009-0115 · HIGH 7.8 · 2009-03-30CVE-2009-0310 · HIGH 7.2 · 2009-02-18CVE-2008-4636 · HIGH 7.2 · 2008-11-27CVE-2008-4109 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2008-09-18CVE-2008-3188 · HIGH 7.5 · 2008-07-22CVE-2008-3187 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2008-07-21CVE-2008-3067 · LOW 2.1 · 2008-07-08CVE-2008-2667 · MEDIUM 5.1 · 2008-07-08CVE-2008-0732 · LOW 2.1 · 2008-02-13CVE-2008-0731 · HIGH 7.5 · 2008-02-13CVE-2007-6167 · HIGH 7.2 · 2007-11-29CVE-2007-5471 · HIGH 7.8 · 2007-10-16CVE-2007-5196 · HIGH 7.5 · 2007-10-14CVE-2007-5200 · LOW 3.3 · 2007-10-14CVE-2007-5195 · MEDIUM 6.8 · 2007-10-14CVE-2007-4432 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2007-08-20CVE-2007-4394 · LOW 2.1 · 2007-08-18CVE-2007-4393 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2007-08-18CVE-2007-4074 · HIGH 10.0 · 2007-07-30CVE-2007-4045 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2007-07-28CVE-2007-0980 · HIGH 10.0 · 2007-02-16CVE-2007-0460 · HIGH 10.0 · 2007-01-24CVE-2006-6662 · MEDIUM 4.1 · 2006-12-21CVE-2006-5616 · HIGH 10.0 · 2006-10-31CVE-2006-5229 · LOW 2.6 · 2006-10-11CVE-2006-5111 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2006-10-03CVE-2006-2658 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2006-09-12CVE-2006-2752 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2006-06-01CVE-2006-2147 · LOW 3.6 · 2006-05-03CVE-2006-0646 · MEDIUM 4.4 · 2006-02-11CVE-2006-0043 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2006-01-31CVE-2005-3655 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-4791 · LOW 2.1 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-4790 · MEDIUM 6.9 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-4789 · LOW 2.1 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-4788 · LOW 2.1 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-4778 · LOW 2.1 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-4772 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-4744 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2005-12-31CVE-2005-3671 · HIGH 7.8 · 2005-11-19CVE-2005-3503 · HIGH 7.2 · 2005-11-05CVE-2005-3322 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2005-10-27CVE-2005-3321 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2005-10-27CVE-2005-3298 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-10-24CVE-2005-3297 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-10-24CVE-2005-3013 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2005-09-22CVE-2005-2500 · HIGH 7.5 · 2005-08-08CVE-2005-2023 · HIGH 10.0 · 2005-06-17CVE-2005-0488 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2005-06-14CVE-2005-1831 · HIGH 8.4 · 2005-05-31CVE-2004-0887 · HIGH 7.2 · 2005-01-27CVE-2004-1191 · LOW 1.2 · 2005-01-10CVE-2004-1190 · LOW 2.1 · 2005-01-10CVE-2004-0592 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2004-12-31CVE-2004-2658 · LOW 2.1 · 2004-12-31CVE-2004-2097 · LOW 2.1 · 2004-12-31CVE-2004-1895 · LOW 2.1 · 2004-12-31CVE-2004-2004 · HIGH 10.0 · 2004-05-06CVE-2004-0064 · LOW 2.1 · 2004-02-17CVE-2004-2133 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2004-01-29CVE-2003-1538 · MEDIUM 6.4 · 2003-12-31CVE-2003-1399 · LOW 1.9 · 2003-12-31CVE-2003-0847 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2003-11-17CVE-2003-0846 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2003-11-17CVE-2003-0144 · HIGH 7.2 · 2003-03-31CVE-2002-2259 · HIGH 7.2 · 2002-12-31CVE-2002-0854 · HIGH 7.2 · 2002-09-05CVE-2002-0768 · HIGH 7.5 · 2002-08-12CVE-2002-0762 · HIGH 7.2 · 2002-08-12CVE-2002-0758 · HIGH 7.5 · 2002-08-12CVE-2001-0918 · MEDIUM 5.1 · 2001-11-22CVE-2001-0525 · HIGH 7.2 · 2001-08-14CVE-2001-1119 · MEDIUM 6.2 · 2001-08-03CVE-2001-1130 · HIGH 7.5 · 2001-08-02CVE-2001-0172 · HIGH 7.2 · 2001-03-26CVE-2001-0109 · LOW 1.2 · 2001-03-12CVE-2000-1107 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2001-01-09CVE-2000-1044 · HIGH 10.0 · 2000-12-11CVE-2000-1016 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2000-12-11CVE-2000-0868 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2000-11-14CVE-2000-0869 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 2000-11-14CVE-2000-0800 · HIGH 10.0 · 2000-10-20CVE-2000-0433 · MEDIUM 4.6 · 2000-05-02CVE-2000-0293 · LOW 2.1 · 2000-05-02CVE-2000-0340 · HIGH 7.2 · 2000-04-29CVE-2000-0233 · HIGH 10.0 · 2000-03-15CVE-2000-0355 · HIGH 7.5 · 1999-08-21CVE-1999-0746 · MEDIUM 5.0 · 1999-08-16CVE-1999-1495 · LOW 2.1 · 1999-02-18CVE-1999-0363 · HIGH 7.2 · 1999-02-02

Known CVEs (99)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-2010-2532 ↗HIGH 7.22010

    lxsession-logout in lxsession in LXDE, as used on SUSE openSUSE 11.3 and other platforms, does not lock the screen when the Suspend or Hibernate button is pressed, which might make it easier for physi…

  • CVE-2010-1507 ↗MEDIUM 5.02010

    WebYaST in yast2-webclient in SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) 11 on the WebYaST appliance uses a fixed secret key that is embedded in the appliance's image, which allows remote attackers to spoof session …

  • CVE-2010-1325 ↗MEDIUM 4.32010

    Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the apache2-slms package in SUSE Lifecycle Management Server (SLMS) 1.0 on SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) 11 allows remote attackers to hijack the authe…

  • CVE-2010-0230 ↗HIGH 7.52010

    SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 SP3 (SLE10-SP3) and openSUSE 11.2 configures postfix to listen on all network interfaces, which might allow remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions.

  • CVE-2009-1297 ↗MEDIUM 4.42009

    iscsi_discovery in open-iscsi in SUSE openSUSE 10.3 through 11.1 and SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) 10 SP2 and 11, and other operating systems, allows local users to overwrite arbitrary files via a symli…

  • CVE-2009-2707 ↗MEDIUM 4.92009

    Unspecified vulnerability in ia32el (aka the IA 32 emulation functionality) before 7042_7022-0.4.2 in SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) 10 SP2 on Itanium IA64 machines allows local users to cause a denial o…

  • CVE-2009-1648 ↗HIGH 7.52009

    The YaST2 LDAP module in yast2-ldap-server on SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 (aka SLE11) does not enable the firewall in certain circumstances involving reboots during online updates, which makes it …

  • CVE-2008-2025 ↗MEDIUM 4.32009

    Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Apache Struts before 1.2.9-162.31.1 on SUSE Linux Enterprise (SLE) 11, before 1.2.9-108.2 on SUSE openSUSE 10.3, before 1.2.9-198.2 on SUSE openSUSE 11.0, a…

  • CVE-2009-0115 ↗HIGH 7.82009

    The Device Mapper multipathing driver (aka multipath-tools or device-mapper-multipath) 0.4.8, as used in SUSE openSUSE, SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES), Fedora, and possibly other operating system…

  • CVE-2009-0310 ↗HIGH 7.22009

    Buffer overflow in SUSE blinux (aka sbl) in SUSE openSUSE 10.3 through 11.0 has unknown impact and attack vectors related to "incoming data and authentication-strings."

  • CVE-2008-4636 ↗HIGH 7.22008

    yast2-backup 2.14.2 through 2.16.6 on SUSE Linux and Novell Linux allows local users to gain privileges via shell metacharacters in filenames used by the backup process.

  • CVE-2008-4109 ↗MEDIUM 5.02008

    A certain Debian patch for OpenSSH before 4.3p2-9etch3 on etch; before 4.6p1-1 on sid and lenny; and on other distributions such as SUSE uses functions that are not async-signal-safe in the signal han…

  • CVE-2008-3188 ↗HIGH 7.52008

    libxcrypt in SUSE openSUSE 11.0 uses the DES algorithm when the configuration specifies the MD5 algorithm, which makes it easier for attackers to conduct brute-force attacks against hashed passwords.

  • CVE-2008-3187 ↗MEDIUM 5.02008

    zypp-refresh-patches in zypper in SUSE openSUSE 10.2, 10.3, and 11.0 does not ask the user before accepting repository keys, which allows remote repositories to cause a denial of service (package data…

  • CVE-2008-3067 ↗LOW 2.12008

    sudo in SUSE openSUSE 10.3 does not clear the stdin buffer when password entry times out, which might allow local users to obtain a password by reading stdin from the parent process after a sudo child…

  • CVE-2008-2667 ↗MEDIUM 5.12008

    SQL injection vulnerability in the Courier Authentication Library (aka courier-authlib) before 0.60.6 on SUSE openSUSE 10.3 and 11.0, and other platforms, when MySQL and a non-Latin character set are …

  • CVE-2008-0732 ↗LOW 2.12008

    The init script for Apache Geronimo on SUSE Linux follows symlinks when performing a chown operation, which might allow local users to obtain access to unspecified files or directories.

  • CVE-2008-0731 ↗HIGH 7.52008

    The Linux kernel before 2.6.18.8-0.8 in SUSE openSUSE 10.2 does not properly handle failure of an AppArmor change_hat system call, which might allow attackers to trigger the unconfining of an apparmor…

  • CVE-2007-6167 ↗HIGH 7.22007

    Untrusted search path vulnerability in yast2-core in SUSE Linux might allow local users to execute arbitrary code by creating a malicious yast2 module in the current working directory.

  • CVE-2007-5471 ↗HIGH 7.82007

    libgssapi before 0.6-13.7, as used by the ISC BIND named daemon in SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 SP 1, terminates upon an initialization error, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of ser…

  • …and 79 more

Competitors (12)

full alternatives comparison →
AI EdgeLabsAnchoreAqua SecurityBitdefenderChainguardCheckmarxCloudMatosConflueraCycodeDevtronEchoEdera

Products (1)

Container Security

1
  • SUSE Security Full Lifecycle Container 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 ↗
    Open source Zero Trust container security platform for Kubernetes environments