Vendor evidence profile
Ping Identity: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on Ping Identity for identity and access management decisions: 34 items from 5 kinds of source, covering December 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 24 advisories attributed to Ping Identity products across 34 evidence items in total, none of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 100 percent of the record comes from sources Ping Identity cannot edit. Whether Ping Identity 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
34
in this record
Attributed advisories
24
none known exploited
Authoritative share
85%
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 94/100
- Authoritative
- 29 items, 85 percent
- Independent
- 5 items, 15 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 0 items, 0 percent
100 percent of this record comes from sources Ping Identity does not control. The remainder is Ping Identity's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the Ping Identity 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 | Jun 12, 2026 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 2 | Jun 12, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 1 | Mar 27, 2023 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 4 | Jul 27, 2026 |
| Practitioner discussions | Reddit, public threads | Independent | 1 | Feb 23, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions Ping Identity in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of Ping Identity: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, Ping Identity as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 24 records passed that test.
- CVE-2026-20746mediumCVSS 6.3Jun 12, 2026
Virtual attribute handling in Ping Identity PingDirectory in affected versions allows only authorized users to exhaust java memory heap when recent login history is enabled and copying…
- 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-2025-27935highCVSS 8.6Dec 04, 2025
The OTP Integration Kit for PingFederate fails to enforce HTTP method validation and state validation properly.
- CVE-2025-26862Oct 27, 2025
Unexpected authentication form rendering in HTML Form Adapter using only non-default redirectless mode in PingFederate allows authentication attempts which may enable brute force login…
- CVE-2024-25573mediumCVSS 6.9Jun 15, 2025
Unsanitized user-supplied data saved in the PingFederate Administrative Console could trigger the execution of JavaScript code in subsequent user processing.
- CVE-2025-22854mediumCVSS 6.9Jun 15, 2025
Improper handling of non-200 http responses in the PingFederate Google Adapter leads to thread exhaustion under normal usage conditions.
18 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 Ping Identity 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 Ping Identity 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 Ping Identity. 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
Ping Identity Platform Reviews, Competitors and Pricing
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
Ping Identity - Wikipedia
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Ping Identity Platform Reviews & Ratings 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
Ping Identity Reviews, Ratings & Features 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
What Ping Identity 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 Ping Identity record right now.
A further 3 register entries mention Ping Identity without naming a product of Ping Identity as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
No public practitioner discussion naming Ping Identity 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 Ping Identity 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 Ping Identity a safe choice?
The public record holds 24 advisories attributed to Ping Identity products and 34 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 Ping Identity data on this page come from?
From 5 kinds of source: European Vulnerability Database, operated by ENISA, European Union; National Vulnerability Database, operated by NIST, United States Department of Commerce; CERT-Bund security advisories, operated by BSI, Federal Republic of Germany; Analyst, review and reference sources, operated by Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press; Practitioner discussions, operated by Reddit, public threads. Every item carries its source URL and, where the source states one, its date.
Does Ping Identity 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 Ping Identity record is the vendor's own material?
0 percent. The remaining 100 percent comes from sources Ping Identity 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 Ping Identity 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, Ping Identity: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 27, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/ping-identity.
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
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.