Vendor evidence profile
SonarQube: what the public record shows
nexalign keeps a continuously updated evidence record on SonarQube for devsecops and application security decisions: 32 items from 5 kinds of source, covering December 2013 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 6 advisories attributed to SonarQube products across 32 evidence items in total, none of them in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities. 100 percent of the record comes from sources SonarQube cannot edit. Whether SonarQube 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
32
in this record
Attributed advisories
6
none known exploited
Authoritative share
78%
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 91/100
- Authoritative
- 25 items, 78 percent
- Independent
- 7 items, 22 percent
- Vendor-controlled
- 0 items, 0 percent
100 percent of this record comes from sources SonarQube does not control. The remainder is SonarQube's own material and is marked as such wherever it appears.
Where this record comes from
These are the sources that contributed to the SonarQube 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 | 16 | Mar 09, 2026 |
| National Vulnerability Database | NIST, United States Department of Commerce | Authoritative | 6 | Mar 09, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 3 | Oct 13, 2025 |
| 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 | Feb 03, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Vulnerability registers are searched by keyword, so an advisory about a different product often mentions SonarQube in passing. An entry is only listed here when a structural signal ties it to a product of SonarQube: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, SonarQube as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. 6 records passed that test.
- CVE-2020-37020highCVSS 7.8Jan 29, 2026
SonarQube 8.3.1 contains an unquoted service path vulnerability that allows local attackers to gain SYSTEM privileges by exploiting the service executable path.
- WID-SEC-2025-2259lowCVSS 4.3Oct 13, 2025
Affected products: SonarSource SonarQube
- CVE-2025-59844highCVSS 7.7Sep 26, 2025
SonarQube Server and Cloud is a static analysis solution for continuous code quality and security inspection.
- CVE-2025-58178highCVSS 7.8Sep 02, 2025
SonarQube Server and Cloud is a static analysis solution for continuous code quality and security inspection.
- WID-SEC-2024-3083mediumCVSS 6.7Oct 07, 2024
Affected products: SonarSource SonarQube
- WID-SEC-2024-1385mediumCVSS 4.9Jun 17, 2024
Affected products: SonarSource SonarQube
What practitioners report
Public threads in which engineers and administrators discuss running this product. Only threads naming SonarQube 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 2 further threads on these platforms that mention SonarQube 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 SonarQube. 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.
- g2.comdate not recordedIndependent
SonarQube Reviews 2026: Details, Pricing, & Features | G2
- en.wikipedia.orgdate not recordedIndependent
SonarQube - Wikipedia
- gartner.comdate not recordedIndependent
SonarQube Reviews & Ratings 2026 | Gartner Peer Insights
- peerspot.comdate not recordedIndependent
What is your primary use case for SonarQube?
The ledger counts 1 further item from these outlets that name SonarQube only in the body of the page, not in its title. Those are not listed here.
What SonarQube 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 SonarQube record right now.
A further 16 register entries mention SonarQube without naming a product of SonarQube as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
No public practitioner discussion naming SonarQube 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 SonarQube 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 devsecops and application security. 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 SonarQube a safe choice?
The public record holds 6 advisories attributed to SonarQube products and 32 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 SonarQube 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; Engineering discussions, operated by Hacker News, public threads. Every item carries its source URL and, where the source states one, its date.
Does SonarQube 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 SonarQube record is the vendor's own material?
0 percent. The remaining 100 percent comes from sources SonarQube 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 SonarQube 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, SonarQube: what the public record shows, nexalign vendor evidence index, Jul 18, 2026. Available at nexalign.io/vendors/sonarqube.
Other vendors in devsecops and application security
The whole field is on one page: every devsecops and application security vendor with a published record, with the size of each.
Wiz
62 evidence items from 5 sources
Prisma Cloud
50 evidence items from 5 sources
Burp Suite Pro
43 evidence items from 5 sources
Snyk
41 evidence items from 4 sources
Semgrep
24 evidence items from 3 sources
JFrog Security
21 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.