Evidence comparison
Check Point and Fortinet: what the public record shows about each
Both products turn up on network security shortlists, so this page puts their two evidence records next to each other: 137 items on Check Point and 130 on Fortinet, each one linked to the source it came from. It does not name a winner, and the section below explains why the numbers cannot be subtracted from one another.
Read the counts correctly
More advisories does not mean less secure. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed. A product deployed in thousands of organisations with a mature disclosure process accumulates far more entries than a product nobody audits. A low count can mean a small install base, a young product or a vendor that publishes little, and a high count often marks the opposite.
The two counts are not measured with equal precision. An advisory is only listed against a vendor when the register ties it to one of its products by name, and vendors differ enormously in how consistently their products are named. Here that gap is 104 unattributable entries for Check Point against 0 for Fortinet, which moves the advisory row far more than the products do. Both numbers are in the table so the difference is visible rather than hidden.
Treat this page as two records shown together, never as one score minus another.
The two records side by side
| Measure | Check Point | Fortinet |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence items in the recordSize of the record, not a quality signal. | 137 | 130 |
| Kinds of source | 5 | 5 |
| Advisories attributed to the vendor's productsCounts scrutiny and deployment breadth. See the caution above. | 12 | 110 |
| Register entries that could not be attributedEntries naming the vendor that could not be tied to one of its products, so they are excluded from the row above. Read the two rows together: where this number is high, the registers describe that vendor's products less consistently, and the advisory count above says more about naming than about the product. | 104 | 0 |
| Of those, in the CISA known-exploited catalogueExploitation observed in the wild. The one count worth reading closely. | 1 | 20 |
| Share from government registers | 85% | 88% |
| Share the vendor cannot edit | 100% | 100% |
| Public practitioner threadsReflects community size as much as product behaviour. | 1 | 7 |
| Most recent entry | Jul 17, 2026 | Jul 24, 2026 |
| Sources last re-queried | Jul 17, 2026 | Jul 24, 2026 |
Where each record comes from
The registers and platforms behind each column, with the body that operates each one. A record resting on government registers carries different weight from one resting on the vendor's own documentation, which is why this is shown per vendor rather than merged.
Check Point
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 102 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 10 | Jun 12, 2026 |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue | CISA, United States | Authoritative | 4 | Aug 25, 2025 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 16 | Jul 09, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 5 | Jul 17, 2026 |
Fortinet
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 62 | Jul 15, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 33 | Jul 16, 2026 |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue | CISA, United States | Authoritative | 20 | Jul 16, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 8 | Jul 24, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 7 | Jun 17, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Only entries tied to a product of the named vendor by a structural signal are listed: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, the vendor as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. Entries that merely mention a vendor in passing are excluded from both columns.
Check Point
- CVE-2024-24919criticalKnown exploitedMay 30, 2024
Check Point Quantum Security Gateways Information Disclosure Vulnerability
- WID-SEC-2026-1818highCVSS 9.1Jun 12, 2026
Affected products: Check Point Security Gateway, Check Point Remote Access VPN, Check Point Mobile Access, Check Point Spark Firewall
- WID-SEC-2026-1746mediumCVSS 5.3Jun 01, 2026
Affected products: Check Point Security Gateway
- WID-SEC-2026-1726highCVSS 8.1May 29, 2026
Affected products: Check Point Security Gateway
- CVE-2026-48136mediumCVSS 4.1May 26, 2026
When Compliance is enabled on Check Point Multi-Domain Management, an authenticated administrator with read-write access to one Management Domain (CMA) can modify stored metadata associated…
- WID-SEC-2024-1743mediumCVSS 7.8Dec 02, 2024
Affected products: Check Point Zone Alarm
Fortinet
- CVE-2026-39808criticalCVSS 9.1Known exploitedJul 16, 2026
Fortinet FortiSandbox OS Command Injection Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-25089criticalCVSS 9.1Known exploitedJul 16, 2026
Fortinet FortiSandbox OS Command Injection Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-21643criticalKnown exploitedApr 13, 2026
Fortinet FortiClient EMS SQL Injection Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-35616criticalCVSS 9.1Known exploitedApr 06, 2026
Fortinet FortiClient EMS Improper Access Control Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-24858criticalCVSS 9.4Known exploitedJan 27, 2026
Fortinet Multiple Products Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel Vulnerability
- CVE-2025-59718criticalCVSS 9.1Known exploitedDec 16, 2025
Fortinet Multiple Products Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature Vulnerability
What practitioners report
Public threads naming each product in their own title. Not curated for sentiment, and not counted as a verdict: a loud thread is one team's experience, not a measurement.
Check Point
- Hacker NewsJun 10, 2024Independent
Free CVE-2024-24919 Scanner – Check Point VPN Vulnerability
Fortinet
- Hacker NewsJun 17, 2026Independent
FortiBleed – 75k Fortinet firewalls have admin passwords cracked
- Hacker NewsJun 17, 2026Independent
FortiBleed leak exposes Fortinet VPN credentials for 73,000 devices
- Hacker NewsOct 12, 2025Independent
Cisco, Fortinet, Palo Alto Networks Devices Targeted in Coordinated Campaign
- Hacker NewsAug 13, 2025Independent
Fortinet discloses critical bug with working exploit amid surge in brute force
- Hacker NewsOct 23, 2024Independent
Fortinet critical 0-day vulnerability being actively exploited
What neither record can tell you
The two lists below are the honest holes in each record. Everything a choice between these two actually turns on sits outside both of them.
Check Point
- A further 104 register entries mention Check Point without naming a product of Check Point as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- 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.
Fortinet
- 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 Check Point 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- Detection Accuracy (MITRE ATT&CK coverage)weight
- MDR / Managed Detection & Responseweight
- Deployment Complexityweight
- Automated Response / Remediationweight
- SIEM Integrationweight
Criteria shown as examples for network security. 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
Which is better, Check Point or Fortinet?
This page does not answer that, and no public page can. Better exists only relative to a decision: which criteria matter, how heavily each weighs, what counts as a dealbreaker and which systems the product has to live next to. What this page gives you is the evidence on both, 137 items on Check Point and 130 on Fortinet, each with its source, so the judgement rests on the record rather than on marketing.
Does Check Point or Fortinet have more vulnerabilities?
Fortinet currently has 110 attributed advisories in this record and Check Point has 12. That comparison is easy to misread. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed, so a widely deployed product with an active disclosure process accumulates more entries than one nobody audits. A low count can equally mean a small install base or a vendor that publishes little. The two figures are also not measured with equal precision: an advisory only counts here when a register ties it to a named product, and 104 entries naming Check Point and 0 naming Fortinet could not be tied to one. The count worth reading closely is how many entries appear in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities, which is 1 for Check Point and 20 for Fortinet.
How independent is the evidence on Check Point and Fortinet?
100 percent of the Check Point record and 100 percent of the Fortinet record come from sources the vendor does not control: government vulnerability registers, public practitioner threads and a fixed list of recognised analysts and technology press. Material either vendor publishes about itself stays in the record and is labelled as a claim.
What does this comparison of Check Point and Fortinet leave out?
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods, support commitments and the current scope of any certificate. None of those appear in a public register; they come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record. Fit with your existing stack and your compliance scope is also absent, because it is a property of your organisation rather than of a network security product.
Why does nexalign publish this instead of ranking Check Point and Fortinet?
Because a ranking would have to invent the buyer. Every quadrant and score sheet silently assumes a weighting that belongs to someone else's decision. nexalign publishes the record and keeps the weighting where it belongs, in DecisionOS, where it is set by the people who have to defend the outcome.
The full records
Check Point: the full evidence record
137 items from 5 kinds of source
Fortinet: the full evidence record
130 items from 5 kinds of source
Two records do not make a decision
Choosing between Check Point and Fortinet depends on which criteria matter to you, how heavily each one weighs, what your hard constraints are and who has to sign the result off. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool, scores it against the criteria of your actual decision and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.