Vendor evidence profile
ForgeRock: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on ForgeRock for identity and access management decisions: 26 items from 4 kinds of source, covering February 2017 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 11 advisories attributed to ForgeRock products across 26 evidence items in total, 1 of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 100 percent of the record comes from sources ForgeRock cannot edit. Whether ForgeRock 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
26
in this record
Attributed advisories
11
1 known exploited
Authoritative share
81%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 22, 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 92/100
- Authoritative
- 21 items, 81 percent
- Independent
- 5 items, 19 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 0 items, 0 percent
100 percent of this record comes from sources ForgeRock does not control. The remainder is ForgeRock's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the ForgeRock 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 | 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 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions ForgeRock in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of ForgeRock: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, ForgeRock as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 11 records passed that test.
- 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.
5 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 ForgeRock 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.
Independent coverage
Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and neutral technology press that name ForgeRock. 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
ForgeRock Reviews, Ratings & Features 2023 | Gartner Peer Insights
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
ForgeRock - Wikipedia
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
ForgeRock Reviews, Competitors and Pricing
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
What is your primary use case for ForgeRock?
The ledger counts 1 further item from these outlets that name ForgeRock only in the body of the page, not in its title. Those are not listed here.
What ForgeRock 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 ForgeRock record right now.
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.
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
Is ForgeRock a safe choice?
The public record holds 11 advisories attributed to ForgeRock products and 26 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 ForgeRock data on this page come from?
From 4 kinds of source: European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue, operated by CISA, United States; 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. Every item carries its source URL and, where the source states one, its date.
Does ForgeRock 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 ForgeRock record is the vendor's own material?
0 percent. The remaining 100 percent comes from sources ForgeRock 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 ForgeRock 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, ForgeRock: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 22, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/forgerock.
Other vendors in identity and access management
The whole field is on one page: every identity and access management vendor with a published record, with the size of each.
Okta
83 evidence items from 6 sources
Microsoft Entra ID
41 evidence items from 6 sources
Auth0
36 evidence items from 3 sources
Ping Identity
34 evidence items from 5 sources
Omada Identity
28 evidence items from 3 sources
OneLogin
22 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.