ThreatSwitch Security Assessment
Security & Compliance
ThreatSwitch a software platform for cleared federal contractors to get and stay compliant with NISPOM and Conforming Change 2. ThreatSwitch is bringing modern technology and design to the security manager's desktop. From standard FSO roles, to facility management, to conforming change two and insider threat, ThreatSwitch makes security compliance hassle-free, more secure, and supported by real human experts.
9-Dimension Security Framework
Identity & Access Management
Compliance & Certification
AI Integration Security
NEWAPI Security
Infrastructure Security
Data Protection
Vulnerability Management
Breach History
Incident Response
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
Score based on 7 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.
Evaluation Friction
Evaluation friction estimates how long it typically takes to fully evaluate this vendor's security practices, from initial contact to complete assessment.
Transparency indicators show data completeness and vendor accessibility
Comprehensive Security Analysis
In-depth assessment with detailed recommendations
Security Analysis
Executive Summary
| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Security Grade | F | Needs Improvement |
| Risk Level | High | Not recommended |
| Enterprise Readiness | 40% | Gaps Exist |
| Critical Gaps | 0 | None |
Security Assessment
| Category | Score | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟢 Breach History | 100/100 | excellent | Maintain current controls |
| 🟡 Vulnerability Management | 85/100 | good | Maintain current controls |
| 🟠 Incident Response | 60/100 | needs_improvement | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 Data Protection | 50/100 | needs_improvement | Implement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more |
| 🟠 API Security | 30/100 | needs_improvement | Add rate limiting and authentication |
| 🟠 Infrastructure Security | 30/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
| 🟠 Identity & Access Management | 25/100 | needs_improvement | URGENT: Implement compensating controls immediately |
| 🟠 Compliance & Certification | 0/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
Overall Grade: F (26/100)
Critical Security Gaps
| Gap | Severity | Business Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟡 No public security documentation or audit reports | MEDIUM | 40-80 hours of security assessment overhead | Request security audit reports (SOC 2, pen tests) and security whitepaper |
Total Gaps Identified: 1 | Critical/High Priority: 0
Compliance Status
| Framework | Status | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| ISO 27001 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| GDPR | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| HIPAA | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
| PCI DSS | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
Warning: No compliance certifications verified. Extensive due diligence required.
Operational Excellence
| Metric | Status | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Status Page | ❌ Not Found | N/A |
| Documentation Quality | ❌ 0/10 | No SDKs |
| SLA Commitment | ❌ None | No public SLA |
| API Versioning | ⚠️ None | No version control |
| Support Channels | ℹ️ 0 channels |
Operational Facts Extracted: 2 data points from operational_maturity enrichment
Integration Requirements
| Aspect | Details | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Setup Time | 3-5 days (manual setup required) | Estimated deployment timeline |
| Known Issues | Manual user provisioning may be required, Limited API automation capabilities, No automated user lifecycle management, Additional security controls needed | Implementation considerations |
⚠️ Inherent Risk Consideration
Data Sensitivity: This application stores sensitive data:
Risk Level: LOW - Contains
Compliance & Certifications
API Intelligence
Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for ThreatSwitch.
API Intelligence
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 DocumentationAI-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.
CISO
ThreatSwitch presents an unacceptable security posture that poses severe enterprise risk, warranting immediate disqualification from our vendor ecosystem. With an abysmal overall security score of 26/100 and comprehensive F-grade ratings across critical security dimensions, this platform fundamentally fails basic enterprise security requirements.
Core security findings reveal catastrophic vulnerability landscape:
-
Identity & Access Control Breakdown Zero authentication capabilities represent a critical security void. Without foundational identity management, the platform exposes organizations to unauthorized access, credential compromise, and potential complete system infiltration. This isn't merely a weakness—it's a gaping security chasm that renders the entire platform untrustworthy.
-
Comprehensive Compliance Failure Complete absence of standard enterprise certifications (SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR compliance) signals systemic security immaturity. These missing frameworks indicate ThreatSwitch lacks structured security governance, risking regulatory non-compliance and potential legal exposure across data protection domains.
-
AI Integration Security Risk An AI readiness score of 24/100 compounds existing security concerns. This extremely low score suggests rudimentary, potentially unsafe AI integration practices that could introduce sophisticated attack vectors through machine learning interfaces.
Critically, zero scores across encryption, infrastructure, threat intelligence, and vendor risk management dimensions compound the platform's inherent insecurity. Each dimension represents a potential catastrophic breach point.
CISO Recommendation: Immediate Vendor Disqualification. ThreatSwitch is fundamentally unacceptable for enterprise deployment. The security posture represents an unacceptable risk profile that would expose our organization to potential comprehensive compromise. No compensating controls could mitigate these systemic vulnerabilities. Recommended action: Terminate evaluation and pursue alternative vendors with demonstrable security maturity.
Security Posture & Operational Capabilities
Comprehensive assessment of ThreatSwitch'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 ThreatSwitch yet.
Security Automation APIs
Programmatic user management, data operations, and security controls
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about ThreatSwitch
ThreatSwitch demonstrates significant security challenges with an overall security score of 26/100, earning an "F" grade in our comprehensive SaaS security assessment. The platform's security posture reveals critical weaknesses across multiple dimensions, with most areas scoring below 50. Identity and Access Management scores just 25/100, indicating substantial risk in user authentication and access controls. The Compliance and Certification dimension receives a concerning 0/100, suggesting potential regulatory and standards compliance gaps. While API Security and Infrastructure Security hover around 30/100, Data Protection shows slightly improved performance at 50/100. The most positive indicators are in Vulnerability Management (85/100) and Breach History (100/100), which demonstrate some robust security practices. See the Security Dimensions section for a detailed breakdown of each assessment category. Organizations considering ThreatSwitch should conduct thorough security due diligence and engage directly with the vendor to understand and mitigate potential risks.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
ThreatSwitch presents significant security challenges with an overall security score of 26/100, resulting in an F grade. The platform demonstrates critical weaknesses across multiple security dimensions. Identity and Access Management scores a low 25/100, indicating substantial risks in user authentication and access controls. Compliance and Certification shows zero progression, representing a major vulnerability for organizations requiring robust regulatory adherence. While API and Infrastructure Security hover around 30/100, the platform's Data Protection dimension offers slightly better performance at 50/100.
The sole bright spots emerge in Vulnerability Management (85/100) and Breach History (perfect 100/100 score), suggesting minimal historical security incidents. However, these isolated strengths cannot compensate for widespread security gaps. Security decision-makers should exercise extreme caution and conduct thorough due diligence before considering ThreatSwitch for sensitive environments. See Security Dimensions section for comprehensive scoring details and potential mitigation strategies.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
ThreatSwitch presents significant security risks for financial data management, with a critically low overall security score of 26/100 and an F grade. The platform struggles across multiple critical security dimensions, particularly in Identity & Access Management (scoring 25/100) and Compliance & Certification (scoring 0/100). These low scores indicate substantial vulnerabilities that could compromise sensitive financial information.
While the platform shows marginal strength in Vulnerability Management (85/100) and no recorded breach history, these isolated positive indicators cannot offset systemic security weaknesses. API Security and Infrastructure Security both score just 30/100, further highlighting potential entry points for unauthorized access.
Financial teams considering ThreatSwitch should conduct extensive additional security due diligence. The Security Dimensions section provides a comprehensive breakdown of these risks, offering transparency into each assessed security domain. For mission-critical financial data, alternative platforms with more robust security frameworks are strongly recommended.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
ThreatSwitch presents significant security risks that make enterprise approval challenging. With an overall security score of 26/100 and an F grade, the platform fails critical enterprise security requirements. The application lacks fundamental compliance certifications including SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI DSS – essential standards for handling sensitive organizational data.
Security decision-makers should exercise extreme caution before considering ThreatSwitch for enterprise deployment. The low score indicates substantial vulnerability gaps that could expose your organization to potential data breaches, compliance violations, and operational risks.
While specific dimensional breakdowns are limited, the comprehensive compliance gaps and low overall score strongly suggest this platform does not meet minimum enterprise security standards. Organizations prioritizing data protection and regulatory compliance should thoroughly vet ThreatSwitch or explore alternative solutions with more robust security frameworks.
See Security Dimensions section for full risk assessment details and specific compliance evaluation criteria.
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
Compare with Alternatives
How does ThreatSwitch stack up against similar applications in Security & Compliance? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.
| Application | Overall ScoreScore↓ | Grade | AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅ | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
34/100🏆 | D | N/A | View ProfileView | |
28/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView | |
27/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView | |
ThreatSwitchCurrent | 26/100 | F | N/A | |
26/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView | |
24/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView | |
23/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView |
Security Comparison Insight
9 alternative(s) have higher overall security scores. Review the comparison to understand security tradeoffs for your specific requirements.