Aqua Security
Container and cloud-native security with the open-source Trivy scanner.
Scorecard from 0 structured reviews
Exposure signal
LowAn objective, third-party reading of this vendor's own credential hygiene. It is not part of the community scorecard and does not affect any rating on DBSE.
Credentials belonging to 1 of this vendor's own staff appear in infostealer logs, and the most recent staff credential appeared 3 years ago. Their staff hold credentials for 3 distinct external services, which is the surface a successful attack on this vendor could reach. This says nothing about how well the product works.
Customer-side infections: 79 (not counted in the band)
These are infections on the machines of people who log in to this vendor's service. They reflect those users' own endpoint hygiene, and a vendor with a large consumer or partner login footprint will always show more of them. Counting that against the vendor would penalise popularity, so this platform does not.
Which of their own systems the exposed credentials open
| System | Times seen |
|---|---|
| https://gitlab.aquasec.com/users/sign_up | 3 |
Classified by the source as: gitlab.
This is the part a count cannot tell you. A stolen credential for a login page that fronts single sign-on or an administrative console reaches further than the same credential for a marketing site, so it carries the smallest of the three weights in the band above. These are the vendor's own published login pages, nothing private.
Context that is recorded but never scored
Stealer families seen against this domain: Lumma, Acreed, RedLine, StealC, Raccoon, Mystic, Generic Stealer, Vidar. Which malware took a credential says more about what is circulating than about the vendor, so it is not scored.
The source records 1 underground mention of this domain. For a security vendor that number is close to meaningless: their own research and advisories get indexed by the same crawlers, so being named is a sign of being talked about, not of being breached. It is shown because the source provides it and hidden data is worse than caveated data, and it is excluded from the band.
Which third-party services appear
| Service | In our directory | Community rating | Occurrences |
|---|---|---|---|
| vmware.com | Not listed | – | 2 |
| freshworks.com | Not listed | – | 1 |
| microsoftonline.com | Not listed | – | 1 |
If your own organisation depends on any of these, a successful attack on this vendor and an attack on you share a blast radius. That is worth a question in the security review, not a reason to walk away. Where a service is itself a vendor in our directory it is named and linked, with whatever the community has scored it, so you can read both sides of the dependency in one place. The rating shown is the community's own; it is not derived from this exposure data.
Two independent sources agree on 1 exposed staff credential.
Source: FireIntel (xti.fireintel.net), public domain summary. Source: Hudson Rock (hudsonrock.com), free infostealer intelligence API. About this data. Read 1 month ago, and due a refresh. DBSE does not collect, hold, or sell this data.
Public vulnerability record
8 CVEs across 3 productsWhat the public CVE catalogue holds against this vendor's products. A higher number here is not a worse vendor, and this is scored into nothing at all.
| Product | Catalogued under | CVEs |
|---|---|---|
| Trivy | Aquasec | 5 |
| Trivy action | Aquasec | 2 |
| Setup trivy | Aquasec | 1 |
Why this is shown and not scored
Counting CVEs punishes the vendors who tell you about them. A company that runs a bug bounty, works with researchers and files CVEs properly will always show more than one that fixes things quietly in a point release. Reading the bigger number as the worse product gets it exactly backwards.
The count also tracks how much software a vendor ships and how long they have shipped it. A vendor with forty products will out-score a vendor with one, whatever either does about security.
And a zero here usually means "not in this catalogue", not "no vulnerabilities found". Absence of a record is not a clean record.
What the list is genuinely good for is specifics: whether the product you are buying appears, and what has been disclosed about it. That is a question for the vendor in a security review, and their answer tells you more than the number does.
Matched in the catalogue as Aquasec. Matching is by name, so it can pick up a namesake or miss a brand filed differently.
Source: CVEFeed (cvefeed.io), public CVE catalogue. About this data. Read 1 month ago. It is not part of the community scorecard, the star rating, or the exposure signal.
Discussions about Aqua Security
- No threads yet. Start one.