Vendor evidence profile
Okta: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on Okta for identity and access management decisions: 83 items from 6 kinds of source, covering December 2009 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 15 advisories attributed to Okta products across 83 evidence items in total, none of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 66 percent of the record comes from sources Okta cannot edit. Whether Okta 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
83
in this record
Attributed advisories
15
none known exploited
Authoritative share
42%
government registers
Last checked
Jul 24, 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 57/100
- Authoritative
- 35 items, 42 percent
- Independent
- 20 items, 24 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 28 items, 34 percent
66 percent of this record comes from sources Okta does not control. The remainder is Okta's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the Okta 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 | 27 | Jul 14, 2026 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 8 | Jul 14, 2026 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 10 | Jan 25, 2026 |
| Practitioner discussions | Reddit, public threads | Independent | 6 | Apr 29, 2026 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 4 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| The vendor's own documentation | Vendor website, indexed by nexalign | Vendor-controlled | 28 | Jul 24, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions Okta in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of Okta: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, Okta as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 15 records passed that test.
- CVE-2025-67505highCVSS 8.4Dec 10, 2025
Okta Java Management SDK facilitates interactions with the Okta management API.
- CVE-2025-66033mediumCVSS 5.3Dec 10, 2025
Okta Java Management SDK facilitates interactions with the Okta management API.
- CVE-2025-7371mediumCVSS 6.8Jul 22, 2025
Okta On-Premises Provisioning (OPP) agents log certain user data during administrator-initiated password resets.
- CVE-2024-9875highCVSS 7.1Nov 20, 2024
Okta Privileged Access server agent (SFTD) versions 1.82.0 to 1.84.0 are affected by a privilege escalation vulnerability when the sudo command bundles feature is enabled.
- CVE-2024-9191highCVSS 7.1Nov 01, 2024
The Okta Device Access features, provided by the Okta Verify agent for Windows, provides access to the OktaDeviceAccessPipe, which enables attackers in a compromised device to retrieve…
- CVE-2024-10327highCVSS 8.1Oct 24, 2024
A vulnerability in Okta Verify for iOS versions 9.25.1 (beta) and 9.27.0 (including beta) allows push notification responses through the iOS ContextExtension feature allowing the…
9 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 Okta in their own title are listed, so a discussion about someone else's incident cannot end up under this vendor. Not curated for sentiment: 13 threads in the record, most recent first.
- r/sysadminMar 30, 2026Independent
Want to move from Okta to Entra but can't figure out how to do it without breaking everything
- r/sysadminFeb 22, 2026Independent
Why is everyone using Okta as their IDP?
- r/cybersecurityJan 25, 2026Independent
ShinyHunters claims Okta customer breaches, leaks data
- Hacker NewsJan 25, 2026Independent
ShinyHunters claims Okta customer breaches, leaks data belonging to 3 orgs
- Hacker NewsNov 18, 2025Independent
Okta's NextJS-0auth troubles
The source ledger counts 3 further threads on these platforms that mention Okta 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 Okta. 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
Okta Platform Reviews, Competitors and Pricing
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Okta Reviews, Ratings & Features 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
Okta, Inc. - Wikipedia
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Okta Identity Governance Reviews & Ratings 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
What Okta 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 24, 2026Vendor-controlled
Meet Your Okta Lifecycle Management Expert, Pragya Seth
- Vendor documentationJul 02, 2026Vendor-controlled
Using Okta for Hybrid Microsoft AAD Join
What this record cannot tell you
A record is only trustworthy if it is explicit about its holes. These are the ones in the Okta record right now.
A further 17 register entries mention Okta without naming a product of Okta 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 Okta 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 Okta a safe choice?
The public record holds 15 advisories attributed to Okta products and 83 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 Okta data on this page come from?
From 6 kinds of source: European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; National Vulnerability Database, operated by NIST, United States Department of Commerce; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads; Practitioner discussions, operated by Reddit, public threads; Analyst, review and reference sources, operated by Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press; 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 Okta 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 Okta record is the vendor's own material?
34 percent. The remaining 66 percent comes from sources Okta 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 Okta 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, Okta: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 24, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/okta.
Okta 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 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.
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
ForgeRock
26 evidence items from 4 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.