Vendor evidence profile
Acronis: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on Acronis for backup and recovery decisions: 102 items from 6 kinds of source, covering August 2023 to July 2026. Every item on this page links to the source it came from, carrying the date that source states and saying so plainly where it states none.
In one line
This record holds 54 advisories attributed to Acronis products across 102 evidence items in total, 1 of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 60 percent of the record comes from sources Acronis cannot edit. Whether Acronis suits your decision is not on this page: that depends on your criteria, your compliance scope and your shortlist, and this record does not know them.
Evidence items
102
in this record
Attributed advisories
54
1 known exploited
Authoritative share
54%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 24, 2026
sources re-queried
How independent is this record
Sources are not equal. A vendor can rewrite its own website overnight and optimise it for whatever a language model is likely to quote. It cannot edit a government vulnerability register or a years-old discussion thread. Every item in this record is classified by how much the vendor could influence it, and the score below is the weighted result.
Independence of this record
Objectivity score 57/100
- Authoritative
- 55 items, 54 percent
- Independent
- 6 items, 6 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 41 items, 40 percent
60 percent of this record comes from sources Acronis does not control. The remainder is Acronis's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the Acronis record, with the body that operates each one. No rating, score or ranking is taken from anywhere, and no vendor pays to appear in this index or to change what it says.
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 29 | Jun 03, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 25 | Apr 30, 2026 |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue | CISA, United States | Authoritative | 1 | Jul 29, 2024 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 3 | Aug 20, 2025 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 3 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| The vendor's own documentation | Vendor website, indexed by nexalign | Vendor-controlled | 41 | Jul 24, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions Acronis in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of Acronis: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, Acronis as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 54 records passed that test.
- CVE-2023-45249criticalKnown exploitedJul 29, 2024
Acronis Cyber Infrastructure (ACI) Insecure Default Password Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-44682highCVSS 7.3Jun 03, 2026
Local privilege escalation due to DLL hijacking vulnerability.
- CVE-2026-42061highCVSS 7.3Jun 03, 2026
Local privilege escalation due to excessive permissions assigned to child processes.
- CVE-2026-50033highCVSS 7.3Jun 03, 2026
Local privilege escalation due to DLL hijacking vulnerability.
- CVE-2026-44609highCVSS 7.3Jun 03, 2026
Local privilege escalation due to EXE hijacking vulnerability.
- WID-SEC-2026-1322highCVSS 9.9Apr 30, 2026
Affected products: Acronis Cyber Protect
48 further attributed records are held in the pool. DecisionOS shows the full set against the components you actually run.
What practitioners report
Public threads in which engineers and administrators discuss running this product. Only threads naming Acronis in their own title are listed, so a discussion about someone else's incident cannot end up under this vendor. Not curated for sentiment: 2 threads in the record, most recent first.
- Hacker NewsAug 20, 2025Independent
Acronis True Image costs performance when not used
- Hacker NewsMay 26, 2025Independent
Acronis True Image Costs Performance When Not Used
The source ledger counts 1 further thread on these platforms that mention Acronis somewhere in the discussion without naming it in the title. They are searched and counted, and they are not listed as reports about this vendor.
Independent coverage
Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and neutral technology press that name Acronis. This section runs on a fixed list of such outlets rather than on whatever a web search returns for the company name, because that search is dominated by sales-intelligence profiles and directory listings which say nothing about the product. Social networks and press-release wires are excluded outright.
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Acronis Reviews, Ratings & Features 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
Acronis - Wikipedia
- blocksandfiles.comdate not recordedIndependent
Private equity house EQT buys majority stake in Acronis
What Acronis publishes about itself
The vendor's own documentation, kept separate from everything above and marked as vendor-controlled. It is useful, and it is a claim until an independent source confirms it.
- Vendor documentationJul 24, 2026Vendor-controlled
Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud – Řešení kybernetické ochrany pro MSP
- Vendor documentationJul 24, 2026Vendor-controlled
Řešení kybernetické bezpečnosti a ochrany dat – Acronis
- Vendor documentationJul 03, 2026Vendor-controlled
Vedení společnosti Acronis
- Vendor documentationJul 03, 2026Vendor-controlled
Softwarové řešení pro zálohování a obnovu podniku
What this record cannot tell you
A record is only trustworthy if it is explicit about its holes. These are the ones in the Acronis record right now.
A further 1 register entries mention Acronis without naming a product of Acronis as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
Most of what this record contains about capabilities comes from Acronis itself. Treat those statements as claims until an independent source confirms them.
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Whether Acronis is the right choice is not on this page
A record of what is true about a vendor is one half of a decision. The other half is your context: which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs, what is a hard no, and who has to sign the result off. No public page can know that, and any page that claims to rank vendors for you is guessing at it.
Typical criteria for this category
Needs your case- Data Sovereignty & Residencyweight
- Certifications (BSI C5, ISO 27001, SOC 2)weight
- Scalability & Performanceweight
- Migration Complexityweight
- Vendor Lock-in Riskweight
Criteria shown as examples for backup and recovery. Weighting and fit are properties of your decision, not of the vendor, so they are not published here.
What DecisionOS adds on top of this record
- The vendor scored against your criteria with your weighting, not against a generic ranking
- A dealbreaker check against your hard constraints: data residency, contract terms, existing stack
- A side-by-side view of the alternatives on your shortlist, built from this same evidence pool
- This evidence mapped onto your compliance scope: NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2
- A decision memo your board can read, with the trade-offs and the reasoning on the record
Questions this page answers
Is Acronis a safe choice?
The public record holds 54 advisories attributed to Acronis products and 102 evidence items in total. 1 of them appear in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. Whether that is acceptable depends on your risk appetite, your compliance scope and the alternatives on your shortlist, none of which a public page can know. This page reports the record; it does not rate the vendor.
Where does the Acronis data on this page come from?
From 6 kinds of source: European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; CERT-Bund security advisories, operated by BSI, Federal Republic of Germany; Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue, operated by CISA, United States; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads; Analyst, review and reference sources, operated by Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press; The vendor's own documentation, operated by Vendor website, indexed by nexalign. Every item carries its source URL and, where the source states one, its date.
Does Acronis pay to appear in this index?
No. There is no paid placement, no sponsored profile and no way for a vendor to change what the record says. Vendors are listed because their category comes up in enterprise technology decisions. Corrections to a specific entry can be sent to [email protected] and are checked against the source.
How much of the Acronis record is the vendor's own material?
40 percent. The remaining 60 percent comes from sources Acronis does not control. Vendor-published material stays in the record and is labelled as vendor-controlled rather than counted as independent confirmation.
Why does this page not say whether Acronis is better than the alternatives?
Because better only exists relative to a decision. Which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs and what counts as a dealbreaker are properties of the buyer, not of the vendor. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool and scores it against the criteria of an actual decision, which is where a comparison becomes meaningful.
How this record is built
Sources are queried on a schedule, not on request. Findings are stored with the source URL, the event date and a content hash, so the same item is never counted twice and every statement stays traceable to where it came from.
Nothing on this page is written by a language model. Counts are counts, dates are the dates the sources carry, and titles are the sources' own wording. Where a section is empty, that is a finding in itself and is stated as one.
Corrections are welcome. If an entry is wrong or an attribution is off, write to [email protected] and it gets checked against the source.
Citing this page
nexalign GmbH, Acronis: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 24, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/acronis.
Other vendors in backup and recovery
The whole field is on one page: every backup and recovery vendor with a published record, with the size of each.
Dell EMC Data Protection
57 evidence items from 3 sources
Veritas NetBackup
56 evidence items from 3 sources
Veeam
54 evidence items from 4 sources
Commvault
38 evidence items from 6 sources
Arcserve
35 evidence items from 4 sources
MSP360
17 evidence items from 3 sources
Turn this record into a decision you can defend
DecisionOS takes the same evidence pool this page is built from, weighs it against the criteria of your actual decision, and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.