Subprocessor list in Vulnerability management
Naming the actual subprocessors is what turns a privacy promise into something you can check.
1 of 11 vendors we measured here publish it, that is 9%. Last checked 2026-09-02.
9% here against 10% across every category we measure. Vulnerability management sits below the overall share for this criterion.
Back to Subprocessor list across all categories, or to Vulnerability management.
Published
The actual list is published, not just a promise to keep one.
| Vendor | What we found |
|---|---|
| Aqua Security | https://www.aquasec.com/trust/sub-processors/ |
No subprocessor list found.
We reached at least one address for each of these vendors and none of them carried it. That is what we found at the addresses we checked, on the date we checked them, and not a statement about what the vendor has.
| Vendor | What we found |
|---|---|
| Acunetix | 7 addresses checked |
| Black Duck | 7 addresses checked |
| Bright Security | 7 addresses checked |
| Brinqa | 7 addresses checked |
| Checkmarx | 7 addresses checked |
| Greenbone | 7 addresses checked |
| JFrog | 7 addresses checked |
| Mend | 7 addresses checked |
| StackHawk | 7 addresses checked |
| Wiz | 7 addresses checked |
Not measured
We could not look at these, or their robots.txt asks us not to. That says something about our measurement, not about them, and they are left out of the percentage above.
| Vendor | What we found |
|---|---|
| Balbix | The vendor’s server blocked or rate-limited our crawler, so this was not measured. |
Found something we missed? Tell us and the next run picks it up.