feedly.com ↗ · required email domain for this vendor's users
0 of 5 independent trust signals established
Nothing about Feedly 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
Trust profileHow to read thisFive separate questions a buyer actually asks, each answered with its own evidence and a link to the source. There is deliberately no overall score: a single number invites comparison it cannot support, and would mostly reflect how much of Feedly we have managed to scan rather than anything about the vendor.
Not checked means we have not looked yet, and is never counted against a vendor. Limited means we did look, but found only one line of evidence — enough to report, not enough to corroborate.
checked 11 of 16 signals
Limited
Independently verified
Has anyone other than the vendor confirmed this?
checked 3 of 4
1 independent source(s) corroborate this vendor's claims.
How long this vendor has been operating, and who stands behind them.
Domain registered 2008 — 18 years ago
Headquarters location not disclosed on their site
Limited
Behaviour under stress
What do they do when something goes wrong?
checked 2 of 3
What their public record shows about handling vulnerabilities and outages.
3 published CVE(s) — a public disclosure record exists
No public status page found
Limited
Disclosure posture
Do they tell you the awkward things unprompted?
checked 2 of 3
How much this vendor volunteers before you have to ask.
No trust center found
No bug bounty or vulnerability disclosure policy found
Data coverage: 27/100What this measures (and doesn't)
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.
Data coverage profileHow to read thisThe same four components behind the data coverage score above, shaped instead of listed — a vendor strong on verification but thin on buyer feedback looks visibly different from one that's the other way around. Security and feedback plot at the neutral midpoint (50) when there's no data yet (no products tracked, no reviews), matching how the actual score itself treats missing data — not a guess either way.
IntegrationsUI-12 — integration graphDetected from this vendor's own published integration/partner pages by the enrichment loop — each entry links the exact page it was found on. Directional: "integrates with" is claimed by this vendor; "integrated by" is claimed by the other vendor's site. Coverage grows as the scan progresses.
Buyer reviewsUI-14 — verified-buyer reviewsWritten only by domain-verified buyers at other companies, attributed to their company domain (never their identity), and moderated. Buyer-sourced opinion, clearly separate from the neutral catalog facts above — and never an input to search or comparison ordering.
verified buyers only
No buyer reviews yet.
Reputation ratingUI-20 — anonymous ratingA single anonymous 5-star signal from buyers, resellers, and analysts who've engaged with this vendor — separate from the domain-attributed reviews above. No rater identity is ever shown, not even at company level.
anonymous
No ratings in this window yet.
AI-powered platform for collecting and analyzing open source threat intelligence 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 →
Security & trust signalsAbout these signalsCertifications are labeled by how well evidenced each one is — confirmed in a public registry, stated by the vendor, or merely detected on a page — and every claim links to its source. Security headers are checked live against the vendor's homepage, re-checked every 90 days. These are independent signals and are not blended into a single score.
9 of 9 technical checks completed — not a score, just coverage
Certifications & compliance claimsWhat the tiers meanVerified in a public registry — we confirmed this against an authoritative public registry (FedRAMP Marketplace, CSA STAR) and re-check it by the registry's own identifier. Stated by the vendor — the vendor says it on a page they control; a sourced claim about themselves, not an independent check. Detected on a page — found during automated enrichment, neither registry-confirmed nor stated on the vendor's own site.
Some certifications have no public registry at all — SOC 2 and HIPAA among them. For those, “not registry-verified” is not a shortfall and means nothing about the vendor.
Some of these (SOC 2, HIPAA and similar) have no public registry, so no one can independently verify them — that is a fact about the framework, not about this vendor.
Security headers (5/5) — checked 8/15/2026
✓ Strict-Transport-Security
✓ Content-Security-Policy
✓ X-Frame-Options
CVE severity over timeUI-24 — CVE severity timelineEvery known CVE with a disclosure date and severity, plotted by when it was published — lets you see whether disclosures are trending toward more or less severe, not just a raw count. Same NVD-sourced, name-matched data as the list below.
Known CVEs (3)About this listSourced from the public NVD database, matched by vendor name. This is a name-based match, not exact version tracking — always check the linked NVD record for affected versions before drawing conclusions. “New” means published within the last 30 days. “Actively exploited” means CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog confirms real-world exploitation, not just a theoretical severity score.
The Sync Feedly plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the crsf_cron_job_…
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in David Merinas Add to Feedly add-to-feedly allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Add to Feedly: from n/a through <= 1.2.11.
The Add to Feedly WordPress plugin through 1.2.11 does not sanitize and escape its settings, allowing high-privilege users such as admin to perform Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltere…
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 →
