ContentKeeper, founded in Australia in 1998 and later acquired by Impero Software, provides web security for Web 2.0 and mobile-centric environments using behavioral analysis and SSL packet inspection. 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
Showing the 12 closest of 57 — .
Integrated by: UncommonX
1 of 5 independent trust signals established
ContentKeeper has one dimension with established evidence. The rest have not been confirmed yet.
Not yet established: Independently verified · 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 (0/5) — checked 10/18/2026
Infrastructure & transparency signals
2 CVEs have 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 3 EPSS observations per CVE.
ContentKeeper Web Appliance (now maintained by Impero Software) versions prior to 125.10 are vulnerable to remote command execution due to insecure handling of file uploads via the mimencode CGI utili…
ContentKeeper Web Appliance (now maintained by Impero Software) versions prior to 125.10 expose the mimencode binary via a CGI endpoint, allowing unauthenticated attackers to retrieve arbitrary files …
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.
ContentKeeper 123.25 and earlier places passwords in cleartext in an INPUT element in cgi-bin/ck/changepw.cgi, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain…
ContentKeeper Web Appliance (now maintained by Impero Software) versions prior to 125.10 are vulnerable to remote command execution due to insecure handling of …
ContentKeeper Web Appliance (now maintained by Impero Software) versions prior to 125.10 expose the mimencode binary via a CGI endpoint, allowing unauthenticate…
ContentKeeper 123.25 and earlier places passwords in cleartext in an INPUT element in cgi-bin/ck/changepw.cgi, which allows remote authenticated users to obtain passwords via this URI.