Vendor evidence profile
Elastic Security: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on Elastic Security for endpoint security (edr and xdr) decisions: 64 items from 7 kinds of source, covering July 2014 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 41 advisories attributed to Elastic Security products across 64 evidence items in total, 1 of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 95 percent of the record comes from sources Elastic Security cannot edit. Whether Elastic Security 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
64
in this record
Attributed advisories
41
1 known exploited
Authoritative share
83%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 18, 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 90/100
- Authoritative
- 53 items, 83 percent
- Independent
- 8 items, 13 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 3 items, 5 percent
95 percent of this record comes from sources Elastic Security does not control. The remainder is Elastic Security's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the Elastic Security 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 | 26 | May 28, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 26 | Jul 02, 2026 |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue | CISA, United States | Authoritative | 1 | Mar 25, 2022 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 5 | Jul 18, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 2 | Jun 21, 2026 |
| Practitioner discussions | Reddit, public threads | Independent | 1 | Jan 23, 2026 |
| The vendor's own documentation | Vendor website, indexed by nexalign | Vendor-controlled | 3 | Jul 03, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions Elastic Security in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of Elastic Security: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, Elastic Security as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 41 records passed that test.
- CVE-2014-3120criticalCVSS 8.1Known exploitedMar 25, 2022
Elasticsearch Remote Code Execution Vulnerability
- WID-SEC-2026-2180mediumCVSS 6.5Jul 02, 2026
Affected products: Open Source Elasticsearch
- CVE-2026-49095highCVSS 7.2May 28, 2026
Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) in the Kibana Fleet agent policy management feature can lead to privilege escalation.
- WID-SEC-2026-0099mediumCVSS 7.5Jan 14, 2026
Affected products: Open Source Elasticsearch
- WID-SEC-2025-2896mediumCVSS 6.5Dec 19, 2025
Affected products: Open Source Elasticsearch
- WID-SEC-2025-2841mediumCVSS 6.8Dec 16, 2025
Affected products: Open Source Elasticsearch
35 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 Elastic Security in their own title are listed, so a discussion about someone else's incident cannot end up under this vendor. Not curated for sentiment: 0 threads in the record, most recent first.
The source ledger counts 3 further threads on these platforms that mention Elastic Security 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 Elastic Security. 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
Elastic Security Reviews & Ratings 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Top Elastic Security Competitors & Alternatives 2025 | Gartner Peer Insights
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Elastic Security Reviews, Ratings & Features 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
The ledger counts 2 further items from these outlets that name Elastic Security only in the body of the page, not in its title. Those are not listed here.
What Elastic Security 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 03, 2026Vendor-controlled
Elastic — The Search AI Company
What this record cannot tell you
A record is only trustworthy if it is explicit about its holes. These are the ones in the Elastic Security record right now.
A further 11 register entries mention Elastic Security without naming a product of Elastic Security as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
No public practitioner discussion naming Elastic Security 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 Elastic Security 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 endpoint security (edr and xdr). 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 Elastic Security a safe choice?
The public record holds 41 advisories attributed to Elastic Security products and 64 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 Elastic Security data on this page come from?
From 7 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; Analyst, review and reference sources, operated by Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads; Practitioner discussions, operated by Reddit, public threads; 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 Elastic Security 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 Elastic Security record is the vendor's own material?
5 percent. The remaining 95 percent comes from sources Elastic Security 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 Elastic Security 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, Elastic Security: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 18, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/elastic-security.
Other vendors in endpoint security (edr and xdr)
The whole field is on one page: every endpoint security (edr and xdr) vendor with a published record, with the size of each.
Trend Micro
91 evidence items from 6 sources
ESET
64 evidence items from 6 sources
Trellix
60 evidence items from 5 sources
Sophos
58 evidence items from 7 sources
WithSecure
58 evidence items from 3 sources
G DATA
57 evidence items from 5 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.