Vendor evidence profile
G DATA: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on G DATA for endpoint security (edr and xdr) decisions: 57 items from 5 kinds of source, covering November 2021 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 57 evidence items on G DATA, and no advisory in NVD, the European Vulnerability Database, the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities or CERT-Bund could be attributed to a G DATA product. That is a gap in what the registers publish under this name, not a clean bill of health. 100 percent of the record comes from sources G DATA cannot edit. Whether G DATA 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
57
in this record
Attributed advisories
0
none known exploited
Authoritative share
96%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 17, 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 99/100
- Authoritative
- 55 items, 96 percent
- Independent
- 2 items, 4 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 0 items, 0 percent
100 percent of this record comes from sources G DATA does not control. The remainder is G DATA's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the G DATA 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 | 29 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue | CISA, United States | Authoritative | 25 | Oct 06, 2025 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 1 | Jul 20, 2022 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 1 | Feb 10, 2025 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 1 | Jul 17, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions G DATA in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of G DATA: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, G DATA as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 0 records passed that test.
What practitioners report
Public threads in which engineers and administrators discuss running this product. Only threads naming G DATA 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 1 further thread on these platforms that mention G DATA 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 G DATA. 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.
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
G Data CyberDefense - Wikipedia
What G DATA 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 G DATA record right now.
55 register entries mention G DATA, but none of them could be attributed to a product of G DATA. They describe other vendors' software and are not shown here.
No public practitioner discussion naming G DATA 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 G DATA 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 G DATA a safe choice?
The public record holds 0 advisories attributed to G DATA products and 57 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 G DATA data on this page come from?
From 5 kinds of source: European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue, operated by CISA, United States; CERT-Bund security advisories, operated by BSI, Federal Republic of Germany; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads; 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 G DATA 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 G DATA record is the vendor's own material?
0 percent. The remaining 100 percent comes from sources G DATA 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 G DATA 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, G DATA: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 17, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/g-data.
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
Elastic Security
64 evidence items from 7 sources
Trellix
60 evidence items from 5 sources
Sophos
58 evidence items from 7 sources
WithSecure
58 evidence items from 3 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.