Evidence comparison
ForgeRock and Ping Identity: what the public record shows about each
Both products turn up on identity and access management shortlists, so this page puts their two evidence records next to each other: 26 items on ForgeRock and 34 on Ping Identity, 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 8 unattributable entries for ForgeRock against 3 for Ping Identity, 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 | ForgeRock | Ping Identity |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence items in the recordSize of the record, not a quality signal. | 26 | 34 |
| Kinds of source | 4 | 5 |
| Advisories attributed to the vendor's productsCounts scrutiny and deployment breadth. See the caution above. | 11 | 24 |
| 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. | 8 | 3 |
| Of those, in the CISA known-exploited catalogueExploitation observed in the wild. The one count worth reading closely. | 1 | 0 |
| Share from government registers | 81% | 85% |
| Share the vendor cannot edit | 100% | 100% |
| Public practitioner threadsReflects community size as much as product behaviour. | 0 | 0 |
| Most recent entry | Jul 22, 2026 | Jul 27, 2026 |
| Sources last re-queried | Jul 22, 2026 | Jul 27, 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.
ForgeRock
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 19 | Apr 07, 2026 |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue | CISA, United States | Authoritative | 1 | Nov 03, 2021 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 1 | Apr 07, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 5 | Jul 22, 2026 |
Ping Identity
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 26 | Jun 12, 2026 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 2 | Jun 12, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 1 | Mar 27, 2023 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 4 | Jul 27, 2026 |
| Practitioner discussions | Reddit, public threads | Independent | 1 | Feb 23, 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.
ForgeRock
- CVE-2021-35464criticalCVSS 9.8Known exploitedNov 03, 2021
ForgeRock Access Management (AM) Core Server Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
- CVE-2025-20628mediumCVSS 6.9Apr 07, 2026
An insufficient granularity of access control vulnerability exists in PingIDM (formerly ForgeRock Identity Management) where administrators cannot properly configure access rules for Remote…
- CVE-2023-0582highCVSS 8.1Mar 27, 2024
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in ForgeRock Access Management allows Authorization Bypass.
- CVE-2022-3748criticalCVSS 9.8Apr 14, 2023
Improper Authorization vulnerability in ForgeRock Inc.
- CVE-2023-1656highCVSS 7.5Mar 29, 2023
Cleartext Transmission of Sensitive Information vulnerability in ForgeRock Inc.
- CVE-2023-0511criticalCVSS 9.1Feb 28, 2023
Relative Path Traversal vulnerability in ForgeRock Access Management Java Policy Agent allows Authentication Bypass.
Ping Identity
- CVE-2026-20746mediumCVSS 6.3Jun 12, 2026
Virtual attribute handling in Ping Identity PingDirectory in affected versions allows only authorized users to exhaust java memory heap when recent login history is enabled and copying…
- CVE-2025-20628mediumCVSS 6.9Apr 07, 2026
An insufficient granularity of access control vulnerability exists in PingIDM (formerly ForgeRock Identity Management) where administrators cannot properly configure access rules for Remote…
- CVE-2025-27935highCVSS 8.6Dec 04, 2025
The OTP Integration Kit for PingFederate fails to enforce HTTP method validation and state validation properly.
- CVE-2025-26862Oct 27, 2025
Unexpected authentication form rendering in HTML Form Adapter using only non-default redirectless mode in PingFederate allows authentication attempts which may enable brute force login…
- CVE-2024-25573mediumCVSS 6.9Jun 15, 2025
Unsanitized user-supplied data saved in the PingFederate Administrative Console could trigger the execution of JavaScript code in subsequent user processing.
- CVE-2025-22854mediumCVSS 6.9Jun 15, 2025
Improper handling of non-200 http responses in the PingFederate Google Adapter leads to thread exhaustion under normal usage conditions.
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.
ForgeRock
Ping Identity
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.
ForgeRock
- A further 8 register entries mention ForgeRock without naming a product of ForgeRock as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- No public practitioner discussion naming ForgeRock was found in the indexed threads. Operational experience with this product is not represented in this record.
- 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.
Ping Identity
- A further 3 register entries mention Ping Identity without naming a product of Ping Identity as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- No public practitioner discussion naming Ping Identity was found in the indexed threads. Operational experience with this product is not represented in this record.
- 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 ForgeRock 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- SSO / SAML / OIDC Integrationweight
- Privileged Access Managementweight
- Identity Governance & Access Certificationweight
- SCIM Provisioning / Lifecycle Managementweight
- Zero-Trust Architecture Supportweight
Criteria shown as examples for identity and access management. 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, ForgeRock or Ping Identity?
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, 26 items on ForgeRock and 34 on Ping Identity, each with its source, so the judgement rests on the record rather than on marketing.
Does ForgeRock or Ping Identity have more vulnerabilities?
Ping Identity currently has 24 attributed advisories in this record and ForgeRock has 11. 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 8 entries naming ForgeRock and 3 naming Ping Identity 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 ForgeRock and 0 for Ping Identity.
How independent is the evidence on ForgeRock and Ping Identity?
100 percent of the ForgeRock record and 100 percent of the Ping Identity 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 ForgeRock and Ping Identity 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 identity and access management product.
Why does nexalign publish this instead of ranking ForgeRock and Ping Identity?
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
ForgeRock: the full evidence record
26 items from 4 kinds of source
Ping Identity: the full evidence record
34 items from 5 kinds of source
Two records do not make a decision
Choosing between ForgeRock and Ping Identity 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.