OWASP Project for making vulnerability management easier. AI-generated from public sourcesThe starting point for every profile: auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public vendor materials, and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst. Nothing here is hidden or overstated — it simply has not been reviewed yet.Where every profile starts, before the vendor or an analyst has reviewed it. A higher label means a more independent source — not a better product.How trust works →
Tools & products
We build profiles from public sources and haven't extracted a capability list for DefectDojo. Closest sources we do hold:
Showing the 12 closest of 128 — see all.
0 of 5 independent trust signals established
Nothing about DefectDojo has been independently confirmed yet. That is a starting point, not a finding — every profile begins here, and it says nothing about the product.
Not yet established: Independently verified · Operating durability · Behaviour under stress · Disclosure posture · Momentum
Has anyone other than the vendor confirmed this?
Nothing here has been confirmed by an independent third party yet.
Is this a real, durable business?
How long this vendor has been operating, and who stands behind them.
Security headers (5/5) — checked 10/18/2026
Infrastructure & transparency signals
Likely-exploited estimates here rest on a median of 2 EPSS observations per CVE — too little history to read as a trend yet. It deepens daily as scores are collected.
A vulnerability was identified in OWASP DefectDojo 2.59.0. This issue affects the function UserSerializer of the file dojo/api_v2/serializers.py of the component API/Web. Such manipulation of the argu…
A vulnerability was determined in OWAP DefectDojo up to 2.55.4. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Benchmark/Engagement/Product/Survey. Executing a manipulatio…
Not a quality rating or endorsement — a measure of how much verified, disclosed data we actually have about this vendor. A low score usually means "we don't have much verified information yet," not "this is a bad vendor." Never used to sort or rank vendor lists.
The platform admin controls the formula's weights.
Product information on this page is auto-generated by 0-Doubt from public sources and not yet confirmed by the vendor or an independent analyst, unless an item is individually labelled otherwise. How trust works →
What do they do when something goes wrong?
What their public record shows about handling vulnerabilities and outages.
Do they tell you the awkward things unprompted?
How much this vendor volunteers before you have to ask.
Are they still shipping, or coasting?
Whether this vendor is visibly still building.
Nothing checked here yet — this is not a mark against DefectDojo.
An issue in OWASP DefectDojo before v.1.5.3.1 allows a remote attacker to escalate privileges via the user permissions component.
A security vulnerability has been detected in OWASP DefectDojo up to 2.55.4. This vulnerability affects the function input_zip.read of the file parser.py of the…
A vulnerability was determined in OWAP DefectDojo up to 2.55.4. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the component Benchmark/Engagement…
A vulnerability was identified in OWASP DefectDojo 2.59.0. This issue affects the function UserSerializer of the file dojo/api_v2/serializers.py of the componen…
A security vulnerability has been detected in OWASP DefectDojo up to 2.55.4. This vulnerability affects the function input_zip.read of the file parser.py of the component SonarQubeParser/MSDefenderPar…
An issue in OWASP DefectDojo before v.1.5.3.1 allows a remote attacker to escalate privileges via the user permissions component.