Email encryption service with automated delivery and compliance tracking 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 →
Capabilities 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 →
end-to-end email encryption
secure file sharing
GDPR privacy compliance proof
HIPAA privacy compliance proof
data leak prevention
human error prevention
business email compromise pre-emption
real-time lookalike domain alerts
email account eavesdropping detection
reply hijack detection
certified proof of delivery
timestamped proof of content
outbound security gateway
in-the-inbox cloud email security
API integration
Read by an AI model from rmail.com’s own pages. What the vendor says it does, not independently verified.
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.
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 rmail 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 12 of 16 signals
Limited
Independently verified
Has anyone other than the vendor confirmed this?
checked 3 of 4
Nothing here has been confirmed by an independent third party yet.
No third-party certifications found
Profile not claimed by the vendor
Strong
Operating durability
Is this a real, durable business?
checked 3 of 4
How long this vendor has been operating, and who stands behind them.
Domain registered 1995 — 31 years ago
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
Security headers (5/5) — checked 10/18/2026
✓ Strict-Transport-Security
✓ Content-Security-Policy
✓ X-Frame-Options
✓ X-Content-Type-Options
✓ Referrer-Policy
✕ security.txt
Infrastructure & transparency signals
Domain since 1995
Exploitation riskProbably exploitedHow this is measuredCombines four public sources, each answering a different question. CVSS (NVD) scores how bad exploitation would be. KEV (CISA) confirms exploitation is happening. EPSS (FIRST) estimates the chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. LEV (NIST CSWP 41) compounds a CVE's own EPSS history into the chance it has already been exploited. “Elevated” means EPSS at or above 10%; LEV is counted as material at 10%. LEV and EPSS are statistical estimates about a vulnerability, not findings about this vendor — and LEV is a stated lower bound, so “10%” means “at least 10%”, never “probably happened”. The underlying CVEs are matched to this vendor by name, not by exact product/version, so check each linked NVD record before drawing conclusions.
2 of 2 CVEs assessed
0
confirmed exploited
0
EPSS ≥ 10%
>99%
highest single CVE
1 CVE has an estimated 10%-or-higher chance of having already been exploited despite not appearing on CISA's KEV catalog. KEV is a curated record of confirmed cases rather than a complete census, so this is where its coverage is likely thinnest — an estimate from EPSS history, not a finding. Based on a median of 2.5 EPSS observations per CVE.
Likely-exploited estimates here rest on a median of 2.5 EPSS observations per CVE — too little history to read as a trend yet. It deepens daily as scores are collected.
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 (2)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. An “EPSS” chip appears at 10% and above: that is FIRST's estimated chance of exploitation in the next 30 days, which measures likelihood rather than impact and so can differ sharply from the severity beside it. See the Exploitation risk panel above for the full picture.
x11.c in xonix 1.4 and earlier uses the current working directory to find and execute the rmail program, which allows local users to execute arbitrary code by modifying the path to point to a maliciou…
Data coverage: 28/100What 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.
Products (1)
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 →
x11.c in xonix 1.4 and earlier uses the current working directory to find and execute the rmail program, which allows local users to execute arbitrary code by m…
Recent changes
last 90 days
CVE-2000-0370 is now estimated at a 100% chance of having already been exploited, despite not appearing on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.2026-08-31 · NVD ↗
CVE-2004-0157 is now estimated at a 68% chance of having already been exploited, despite not appearing on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.2026-08-31 · NVD ↗
