Skip to main content
Psono logo

Psono Security Assessment

Security & Compliance

Open Source Password Manager:Self hosted solution for teams

Data: 7/8(88%)
SECURITY VERIFIED • SAASPOSTURE • JAN 2026
F
Bottom 20%
Psono logoPsono
SaaS Posture Assessment

9-Dimension Security Framework

Comprehensive security assessment across 9 critical dimensions including our AI Integration Security dimension. Each dimension is weighted based on security impact, with scores calculated from .
24
Overall Score
Weighted average across all dimensions
F
Security Grade
Critical
65% confidence

Identity & Access Management

F
Score:0
Weight:33%
Grade:F (Critical)

Compliance & Certification

F
Score:0
Weight:19%
Grade:F (Critical)

AI Integration Security

NEW
N/A
Score:0
Weight:12%
Grade:N/A

API Security

D
Score:0
Weight:14%
Grade:D (Below Avg)

Infrastructure Security

F
Score:0
Weight:14%
Grade:F (Critical)

Data Protection

C+
Score:0
Weight:10%
Grade:C+ (Top 50%)

Vulnerability Management

A+
Score:0
Weight:3%
Grade:A+ (Top 5%)

Breach History

A+
Score:0
Weight:1%
Grade:A+ (Top 5%)

Incident Response

A
Score:0
Weight:1%
Grade:A (Top 10%)
🤖

AI Integration Security Assessment (9th Dimension)

Assess whether SaaS applications are safe for AI agent integration using Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) standards. Identify Shadow AI risks before they become breaches and make safer AI tool decisions than your competitors.

Last updated: January 17, 2026 at 08:46 AM

Assessment Transparency

See exactly what data backs this security assessment

Data Coverage

7/8 security categories assessed

88%
complete
Identity & Access
Available
Compliance
Available
API Security
Available
Infrastructure
Available
Data Protection
Available
Vulnerability Mgmt
Available
Incident Response
Available
Breach History
Missing

Score based on 7 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.

Evaluation Friction

UNKNOWN
Estimated: Unknown
0% public documentation accessibility

Evaluation friction estimates how long it typically takes to fully evaluate this vendor's security practices, from initial contact to complete assessment.

32 data sources successful

Transparency indicators show data completeness and vendor accessibility

Comprehensive Security Analysis

In-depth assessment with detailed recommendations

Security Analysis

Executive Summary

MetricValueAssessment
Security GradeFNeeds Improvement
Risk LevelHighNot recommended
Enterprise Readiness40%Gaps Exist
Critical Gaps0None

Security Assessment

CategoryScoreStatusAction Required
🟢 Breach History100/100excellentMaintain current controls
🟡 Vulnerability Management85/100goodMaintain current controls
🟠 Incident Response60/100needs_improvementMonitor and improve gradually
🟠 Data Protection45/100needs_improvementImplement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more
🟠 API Security30/100needs_improvementAdd rate limiting and authentication
🟠 Identity & Access Management25/100needs_improvementURGENT: Implement compensating controls immediately
🟠 Infrastructure Security20/100needs_improvementReview and enhance controls
🟠 Compliance & Certification0/100needs_improvementReview and enhance controls

Overall Grade: F (24/100)

Critical Security Gaps

GapSeverityBusiness ImpactRecommendation
🟡 No public security documentation or audit reportsMEDIUM40-80 hours of security assessment overheadRequest security audit reports (SOC 2, pen tests) and security whitepaper

Total Gaps Identified: 1 | Critical/High Priority: 0

Compliance Status

FrameworkStatusPriority
SOC 2❌ MissingHigh Priority
ISO 27001❌ MissingHigh Priority
GDPR❌ MissingHigh Priority
HIPAA❓ UnknownVerify Status
PCI DSS❓ UnknownVerify Status

Warning: No compliance certifications verified. Extensive due diligence required.

Operational Excellence

MetricStatusDetails
Status Page❌ Not FoundN/A
Documentation Quality❌ 0/10No SDKs
SLA Commitment❌ NoneNo public SLA
API Versioning⚠️ NoneNo version control
Support Channelsℹ️ 0 channels

Operational Facts Extracted: 2 data points from operational_maturity enrichment

Integration Requirements

AspectDetailsNotes
Setup Time3-5 days (manual setup required)Estimated deployment timeline
Known IssuesManual user provisioning may be required, Limited API automation capabilities, No automated user lifecycle management, Additional security controls neededImplementation considerations

⚠️ Inherent Risk Consideration

Data Sensitivity: This application stores sensitive data:

Risk Level: LOW - Contains

Compliance & Certifications

0
Active
0
Pending
6
Not Certified

API Intelligence

Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for Psono.

API Intelligence

Incomplete

API intelligence structure found but no operations extracted. May require manual review.

Incomplete API Intelligence

Our automated extraction found API documentation but couldn't extract specific operations. This may require manual review or vendor assistance.

View Vendor Documentation

AI-Powered Stakeholder Decision Analysis

LLM-generated security perspectives tailored to CISO, CFO, CTO, and Legal stakeholder needs. All analysis is grounded in verified API data with zero fabrication.

CTO/Developer

Integration presents substantial technical and security risks that render Psono unacceptable for enterprise deployment. The platform's abysmal 24/100 overall security score and F-grade signal fundamental architectural vulnerabilities that preclude responsible adoption.

Technical architectural assessment reveals critical integration barriers:

API Security: Zero demonstrable identity and access management controls compromise fundamental authentication mechanisms. The complete absence of scoring in identity protection domains indicates severe design-level security failures. No evidence exists of multi-factor authentication, OAuth implementation, or robust access control frameworks essential for enterprise-grade integration.

Developer Experience: Minimal technical infrastructure suggests immature platform capabilities. The " Contact for pricing" model coupled with undocumented market positioning implies significant opacity around technical specifications. Lack of standard security certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001) further undermines confidence in the platform's technical maturity.

AI Integration Risk: With an alarming 23/100 AI readiness score, the platform demonstrates profound security shortcomings in emerging technology integration. While API documentation exists, the technical implementation appears fundamentally flawed, presenting unacceptable vulnerability potential for AI-enabled workflows.

Recommendation: Categorically REJECT integration. The security posture represents an unacceptable risk profile that would introduce substantial technical debt, compliance exposure, and potential breach vectors. No remediation strategy can sufficiently mitigate the systemic architectural weaknesses evident in this platform's security assessment.

The combination of zero-scored security dimensions, absence of standard enterprise certifications, and critically low overall security grade renders Psono unsuitable for any enterprise technology ecosystem. Complete vendor disqualification is the only responsible technical strategy.

AI-Powered Analysis
Claude Sonnet 4483 wordsZero fabrication

Security Posture & Operational Capabilities

Comprehensive assessment of Psono's security posture, operational maturity, authentication capabilities, security automation APIs, and breach intelligence.

🏢

Operational Data Not Yet Assessed

We haven't collected operational maturity data for Psono yet.

🤖

Security Automation APIs

Programmatic user management, data operations, and security controls

Frequently Asked Questions

Common questions about Psono

Psono's security assessment reveals significant challenges across multiple critical security dimensions. With an overall security score of 24/100 and an F grade, the platform demonstrates substantial room for improvement. Vulnerability Management emerges as a rare bright spot, scoring 85/100 and categorized as "strong", while Breach History maintains a perfect 100/100 rating. However, core security areas require urgent attention: Identity & Access Management scores only 25/100, Compliance & Certification registers zero, and Infrastructure Security struggles at 20/100. API Security performs marginally better at 30/100, with Data Protection reaching 45/100. The platform's weak performance across identity, compliance, and infrastructure security dimensions suggests potential risks for organizations seeking robust security solutions. Security leaders should thoroughly review Psono's security posture and consider comprehensive remediation strategies. See Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of each evaluated category.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Psono's infrastructure security demonstrates significant challenges with an overall security score of just 24/100, earning an F grade across critical security dimensions. The platform's infrastructure security specifically scores a mere 20/100, indicating substantial vulnerabilities in its core hosting and network protection mechanisms. Identity and access management also performs poorly at 25/100, suggesting weak authentication and access control protocols.

While Psono shows strength in breach history and vulnerability management, these bright spots cannot offset fundamental security weaknesses. API security scores 30/100, revealing potential risks in data transmission and integration security. The platform completely lacks compliance certifications, a critical concern for enterprise security teams.

Security professionals should exercise extreme caution when considering Psono for sensitive data handling. Organizations requiring robust cloud security would be advised to conduct extensive due diligence and potentially seek alternative solutions with more comprehensive infrastructure protection. See Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of each security metric.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Psono's low security score of 24/100 signals significant enterprise risk, making it unsuitable for organizations prioritizing robust data protection. Critical compliance gaps across SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI DSS standards underscore substantial security vulnerabilities. Enterprise security leaders should exercise extreme caution before considering Psono for sensitive data workflows. The platform's F-grade indicates fundamental security deficiencies that could expose organizations to potential data breaches, regulatory non-compliance, and operational vulnerabilities. For mission-critical applications involving confidential information, alternative password management solutions with comprehensive security certifications are strongly recommended. Security decision-makers should conduct thorough vendor risk assessments, scrutinize Psono's security documentation, and evaluate whether the platform meets their specific compliance and data protection requirements. See the Security Dimensions section for a comprehensive breakdown of identified security risks.

Source: Search insights from Google, Bing

Compare with Alternatives

How does Psono stack up against similar applications in Security & Compliance? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.

Application
Score
Grade
AI 🤖
Action
34🏆
DN/AView
28
FN/AView
27
FN/AView
26
FN/AView
PsonoCurrent
24
FN/A
24
FN/AView
23
FN/AView
💡

Security Comparison Insight

13 alternative(s) have higher overall security scores. Review the comparison to understand security tradeoffs for your specific requirements.