Anomali
Threat intelligence management and security analytics.
Scorecard from 0 structured reviews
Exposure signal
None observedAn 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.
No staff credential theft is visible in this data set for this vendor. That is a good sign but not a guarantee: it also depends on how much of the vendor is visible to infostealer telemetry at all.
Customer-side infections: 6 (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.
Context that is recorded but never scored
Stealer families seen against this domain: RedLine, StealC, Generic Stealer. 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.
Two independent sources agree on 0 exposed staff credentials.
Source: FireIntel (xti.fireintel.net), public domain summary. Source: Hudson Rock (hudsonrock.com), free infostealer intelligence API. About this data. Read 18 hours ago. DBSE does not collect, hold, or sell this data.
Public vulnerability record
8 CVEs across 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Flowmon anomaly detection system | Progress | 4 |
| Agave | Anomali | 1 |
| Match | Anomali | 1 |
| Anomaly guard module | Cisco | 1 |
| Traffic anomaly detector module | Cisco | 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 Anomali. 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 16 hours ago. It is not part of the community scorecard, the star rating, or the exposure signal.
Discussions about Anomali
- No threads yet. Start one.