Vendor evidence profile
CyberArk: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on CyberArk for privileged access management decisions: 48 items from 4 kinds of source, covering April 2018 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 2 advisories attributed to CyberArk products across 48 evidence items in total, none of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 100 percent of the record comes from sources CyberArk cannot edit. Whether CyberArk 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
48
in this record
Attributed advisories
2
none known exploited
Authoritative share
77%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 27, 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 91/100
- Authoritative
- 37 items, 77 percent
- Independent
- 11 items, 23 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 0 items, 0 percent
100 percent of this record comes from sources CyberArk does not control. The remainder is CyberArk's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the CyberArk 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 | 35 | Jun 12, 2026 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 2 | Nov 27, 2025 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 7 | Jul 27, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 4 | Aug 07, 2025 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions CyberArk in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of CyberArk: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, CyberArk as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 2 records passed that test.
- CVE-2025-13762mediumCVSS 4.8Nov 27, 2025
Improper Input Validation vulnerability in CyberArk CyberArk Secure Web Sessions Extension on Chrome, Edge allows Denial of Service when trying to starting new SWS sessions.This issue…
- CVE-2025-49831criticalCVSS 9.8Jul 15, 2025
An attacker of Secrets Manager, Self-Hosted installations that route traffic from Secrets Manager to AWS through a misconfigured network device can reroute authentication requests to a…
What practitioners report
Public threads in which engineers and administrators discuss running this product. Only threads naming CyberArk in their own title are listed, so a discussion about someone else's incident cannot end up under this vendor. Not curated for sentiment: 4 threads in the record, most recent first.
- Hacker NewsAug 07, 2025Independent
Researchers Uncover RCE Attack Chains in HashiCorp Vault and CyberArk Conjur
- Hacker NewsJul 30, 2025Independent
Palo Alto Networks agrees to buy CyberArk for $25B
- Hacker NewsJul 30, 2025Independent
Palo Alto Networks Announces Agreement to Acquire CyberArk
- Hacker NewsJul 29, 2025Independent
Palo Alto Networks closing on over $20B acquisition of CyberArk
Independent coverage
Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and neutral technology press that name CyberArk. 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.
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
CyberArk Secrets Management Reviews, Competitors and Pricing
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
CyberArk - Wikipedia
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
CyberArk Products and Reviews
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
CyberArk Privileged Access Manager: Pros and Cons 2026
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
CyberArk Reviews, Ratings & Features 2025 | Gartner Peer Insights
The ledger counts 1 further item from these outlets that name CyberArk only in the body of the page, not in its title. Those are not listed here.
What CyberArk 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.
What this record cannot tell you
A record is only trustworthy if it is explicit about its holes. These are the ones in the CyberArk record right now.
A further 33 register entries mention CyberArk without naming a product of CyberArk 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.
Whether CyberArk 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 privileged 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
Is CyberArk a safe choice?
The public record holds 2 advisories attributed to CyberArk products and 48 evidence items in total. None of them appears 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 CyberArk data on this page come from?
From 4 kinds of source: European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; National Vulnerability Database, operated by NIST, United States Department of Commerce; Analyst, review and reference sources, operated by Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads. Every item carries its source URL and, where the source states one, its date.
Does CyberArk 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 CyberArk record is the vendor's own material?
0 percent. The remaining 100 percent comes from sources CyberArk 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 CyberArk 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, CyberArk: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 27, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/cyberark.
CyberArk next to a product it competes with
The same two records side by side, with the reasons their numbers cannot be subtracted from one another stated on the page.
Other vendors in privileged access management
The whole field is on one page: every privileged access management vendor with a published record, with the size of each.
HashiCorp Vault
70 evidence items from 4 sources
BeyondTrust
52 evidence items from 5 sources
ARCON
32 evidence items from 4 sources
Delinea
30 evidence items from 4 sources
WALLIX
6 evidence items from 2 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.