All analysis was generated autonomously, without human review. Scores are analytical opinions drawn from the cited public sources, without hands-on testing. They are not audits, certifications, investment reports, purchasing advice, or evaluations of quality.
CodeIntegrity sells a runtime control layer for AI agents, software that inspects each tool call and blocks unsafe data flows before an agent acts. Its founders, Steven Jung and Abi Raghuram, built a reputation on offensive research, including compromising the app Notion in under four hours, work The Economist cited in September 2025. The research is further along than the business, which is in pilots with companies in regulated industries and shows no named customer. A $5 million seed led by the cybersecurity fund SYN Ventures backs the next stage. The control point CodeIntegrity sells is a capability the platforms hosting those agents could build themselves, so its edge is being early and sharp rather than owning something rivals cannot copy.
| Description | Runtime control layer for AI agents that inspects tool calls and data flows and enforces policy before an agent action executes. | [f1] |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 2024 | [f2] |
| HQ | San Francisco, California | [f3] |
| Funding | $5.25M total | [f2] |
| Latest funding | Seed, $5M (May 2026) | [f4] |
| Product | What it does |
|---|---|
| CodeIntegrity | Agent Action Runtime Mediation platform that turns proposed agent actions into control points teams can inspect and constrain before tools or MCP servers execute. |
AI Defense Matrix
| Govern | Identify | Protect | Detect | Respond | Recover | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI-Workload Platforms Inference servers, training platforms, vector DB platforms, and the model-loading supply chain. | ||||||
| AI Orchestration Tools Agentic orchestration tools, plus their plugins, skills, hooks, system prompts, scaffolding, harnesses, configuration settings, and MCP clients on user devices. | ||||||
| AI-Generated Code Code produced by AI tools, AI-assisted reviews, AI-generated infrastructure-as-code and tests, and vibe-coded apps that bypass CI/CD. | ||||||
| AI Gateways & Routers MCP proxies and gateways, LLM routers, outbound AI-service traffic, shadow AI egress, and model-registry traffic. | ||||||
| AI Model Model weights, fine-tuning checkpoints, model cards, registries, AIBOM, and the third-party LLMs your enterprise consumes. | ||||||
| Training Data Datasets used for training, fine-tuning, and continued learning. | ||||||
| Runtime AI Data User prompts, inference inputs, RAG content, vector DB content, persistent agent memory, and interaction history. | ||||||
| AI Agent Identities AI agents as non-human principals, plus credentials, keys, permission scopes, service accounts, and delegation chains across agents and tools. |
CodeIntegrity mediates AI agent tool calls at runtime, evaluating intent, data provenance, and destination to enforce policy before an agent action or MCP tool call executes. These capabilities are mapped to the AI Defense Matrix. [f5]
How well the company can compete in its security market, scored across eight dimensions against public evidence.
| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Problem Clarity How precisely the company defines its problem, with evidence the problem exists at the scale claimed. | 3/5 | The buyer is the enterprise security team deploying AI agents, and the pain, that an agent can move sensitive data through a tool call before security sees it, is clearly stated. An Economist mention and a forming vendor category corroborate that the problem is real, but the public record carries no quantified incidence or named buyer budget, and the sharpest evidence is the founders' own offensive research. [s7, s5, s11, s3] |
| Capability Depth How specific the technical capabilities are, with evidence beyond marketing claims such as docs and third-party validation. | 3/5 | CodeIntegrity documents a concrete architecture on its platform page, a runtime mediation layer that captures the proposed tool or MCP call, evaluates intent, provenance, and destination, and applies policy before execution, and its blog carries exploit writeups that show real offensive craft. The defensive product has no public documentation portal, benchmark, trial, or third-party evaluation, and it is piloting rather than generally available. [s2, s5, s1, s8] |
| Market Timing Whether the market is ready for this product, with evidence that buyers are actively seeking solutions. | 3/5 | CodeIntegrity is young and rides the 2024 to 2026 wave of enterprise agent deployment, a credible enabler that The Economist and a fast-forming vendor category both document. Buyer demand is still indirect, shown by unnamed pilots in regulated industries and investor interest rather than named budgets or references. [s7, s11, s8, s4] |
| Team Credibility Demonstrated domain expertise with public signals such as prior exits, publications, and industry recognition. | 3/5 | Co-founders Steven Jung and Abi Raghuram are publicly identifiable, met at Rose-Hulman, and worked separately at other employers before reuniting to start the company in 2024, but neither shows a prior exit or senior security-leadership role in fetched sources. Their public security research, including the Economist-cited Notion compromise and a series of exploit writeups, is the strongest verifiable credential. [s6, s7, s5] |
| GTM Proof Evidence of actual traction (customers, revenue signals, partnerships) beyond stated intentions. | 2/5 | The product is piloting with companies in regulated industries, and no named customer, reference, or partnership appears in any fetched source. The score carries a small upward adjustment for the indirect signal of a cybersecurity-specialist lead investor. [s8, s4] |
| Funding Efficiency Whether funding matches go-to-market ambition, with signs of capital-efficient growth. | 3/5 | The $5.25 million raised is modest for a seed-stage company, and the product is already in pilots, but public sources show no revenue, burn, or how much capital reached that stage. Weeks past the seed announcement, efficiency cannot be confirmed in either direction. [s9, s8, s4] |
| Category Clarity Whether the company creates or fits a recognizable category that buyers can quickly place in their stack. | 3/5 | CodeIntegrity fits an emerging category that press and analysts already call AI agent security, so buyers can place it without heavy coaching, but the budget line is nascent and the company's own runtime-mediation label still needs translation. The category is contested, with multiple young vendors and platform incumbents claiming the same ground. [s11, s8, s2] |
| Incumbent Defensibility How vulnerable the core value proposition is to absorption as a feature by a platform vendor. | 2/5 | The cloud platforms and model providers that host these agents could add tool-call controls into the runtime, where they would reach the buyer first, and an agent-governance feature is a plausible near-term release for them. CodeIntegrity's cross-platform independence is the structural counterargument, but it is unproven and the product is pre-general-availability. [s2, s8, s1] |
CodeIntegrity frames enterprise AI agents as a new security exposure, because an agent driven by a language model acts non-deterministically and can move sensitive data through a tool call before security teams see it. CEO Steven Jung argues that agents are arriving in enterprise settings faster than anyone has secured them, and CTO Abi Raghuram says companies rushed to deploy agents without knowing how to do it safely.
Independent coverage supports the pain. GeekWire reports that the company earned a mention in The Economist in September 2025 for compromising the note-taking app Notion in under four hours. A distinct vendor category has since formed around agent security, which the industry analyst Richard Stiennon tracks as a steady wave of new entrants.
The company demonstrated the attack class rather than citing others' incidents. Its research blog carries exploit writeups against production agent products, and the founders' Notion compromise showed how quickly an agent can be turned against the data it can reach. [s7, s5, s11, s3, s1]
The platform turns each agent action into a checkpoint. CodeIntegrity's Agent Action Runtime Mediation platform captures the tool or MCP call an agent proposes, evaluates intent, data provenance, and destination, and applies policy before the action executes. The homepage frames the same idea as full visibility into agent execution with control over tool calls, data flow, and risky actions before they run.
The architecture separates instructions, data, and actions at runtime. The company describes binding identity to each call, preserving provenance across tool outputs, limiting the blast radius when an agent meets untrusted input, and recording the request, source context, destination, policy decision, and outcome behind every sensitive action.
Public verification of the defense lags the offense. The platform has no documentation portal, benchmark, trial, or third-party evaluation among fetched pages, and it is piloting rather than generally available, so the artifacts a buyer can inspect today are the exploit writeups that validate the team's offensive understanding more than the product's efficacy. [s2, s1, s3, s5, s8]
CodeIntegrity positions as a platform-independent control point for agent actions. Its argument is that enterprises running agents across many systems need one enforcement layer between intent and execution that no single platform vendor provides.
The field around that argument is filling fast. GeekWire names Seattle's Certiv as a rival that recently emerged from stealth, several venture-backed startups sell agent security to the same emerging budget, and the cloud platforms and model providers that host agents could add tool-call controls into the runtime themselves.
The counterweight is absorption speed. A control point between an agent and its tools is a plausible near-term feature for the platform vendors that already own the buyer relationship, and CodeIntegrity's cross-platform independence has no named production customer behind it yet. [s2, s8, s1]
No demand evidence is named in the public record. Fetched sources describe pilots with companies in regulated industries but name no customer, reference, or partnership, where more mature launches carry customer logos.
Public visibility comes mainly through research and press coverage. CodeIntegrity publishes exploit writeups that reach security practitioners, including the Economist-cited Notion compromise, and fetched sources show no separate sales organization.
Investor backing stands in for traction. SYN Ventures, a cybersecurity-focused fund managing $900 million, led the $5 million seed with participation from Antler and Boost VC, a signal that opens doors but is not itself a customer. [s8, s7, s5, s4]
The co-founders are publicly identifiable and technically credible, but early in their careers. Steven Jung is CEO and Abi Raghuram is CTO, they met at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, and they worked separately at other employers before reuniting to found CodeIntegrity in 2024.
Public security research is the team's strongest credential. The founders drew an Economist mention by compromising Notion in under four hours, and the research blog carries a series of exploit writeups against production agent products, output that demonstrates domain depth titles alone would not establish.
Bench depth beyond the founders is not yet assessable. Fetched sources name the two co-founders, note the company still has employees in Washington state after the founders relocated to San Francisco, and disclose no other executives or headcount. [s6, s7, s5, s8]
Inspectable trust collateral is limited to a self-displayed SOC 2 Type II badge. The homepage also aligns the company with the Cloud Security Alliance and the OWASP GenAI Security Project and links to a Trust Center at a subdomain that does not resolve. A probe on July 3, 2026 reached no trust portal, downloadable report, or inspectable evidence behind the badge, so the SOC 2 claim rests on the company's own display.
The product's position raises the bar. A control layer that mediates agent actions inside enterprise systems will face procurement reviews that probe availability, data handling, and failure modes, and no public material yet answers them.
The public exploit writeups are the stronger trust signal. Research that breaks production agent products shows security depth the company's age would not predict. [s1, s12, s5]
| Company | Relationship | Note | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|
| Certiv | competes with | Seattle startup building agentic AI security, which GeekWire names as a direct competitor that recently emerged from stealth. | |
| Capsule Security | competes with | Runtime security layer that discovers enterprise AI agents and blocks unsafe actions before execution, the closest overlap with CodeIntegrity's runtime control point. | |
| Operant AI | competes with | Runtime AI defense platform protecting live AI applications and agents in production environments. | |
| Microsoft | competes with | Platform incumbent whose enterprise agent runtimes make native tool and action governance a credible bundling risk rather than a cited head-to-head offering. | N/AMicrosoft is scored by product line, not as a whole company, so there is no company-wide column to compare. Open its profile to compare a specific product. |
Add analyzed competitors to compare them side by side with CodeIntegrity.
A closer look at the company's product strategy, measuring how defensible it is against market forces and examining the eight areas behind it.
pivot urgently
CodeIntegrity sits in the agent's execution path, the source of both its durability and its exposure. A control layer that every tool call passes through can become wired into how a customer runs agents, and unwinding it is real work. That lock-in is unproven, because the product is still in pilots with no named customer and no workflow yet depending on it. Little else resists copying: software the customer runs, a table-stakes SOC 2 badge, and no disclosed cross-customer data pool. The credible threat is that the platforms hosting these agents could build equivalent controls into their own stack. CodeIntegrity is most defensible for regulated buyers wanting a control point independent of any platform, and weakest where the platform's native controls are judged good enough.
| Dimension | Score | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Value Delivery Does the product sell software as the product, or judgment, trust, or accountability with software as the delivery mechanism. | 1/3 | The visible offer is software runtime controls sold through a demo-led motion, self-hostable by option, with no managed service or judgment layer that accepts accountability in the public offer. The software-product level. |
| Switching Cost How expensive leaving is for a customer: data portability, integrations, learned workflows, network effects, regulatory data residency. | 1/3 | The product is in pilots with no evidence that any customer workflow yet depends on it, and an early pilot can be dropped. A control point in the execution path could accumulate integration depth later, but no such lock-in appears in fetched sources. |
| Compliance Moat Whether certifications, liability acceptance, or audit trails block an easy replacement. | 1/3 | The company self-displays a SOC 2 Type II badge, procurement table stakes rather than a blocking requirement, and the cited record shows no regulatory mandate for runtime agent control. No inspectable report backs the badge as of the July 2026 probe. |
| Problem Complexity Whether the product requires ML, optimization, real-time systems, or years of specialized expertise. | 3/3 | Mediating agent actions in real time, separating instructions from data, and enforcing policy before execution require specialized low-latency engineering, and the founders' exploit research demonstrates adversarial depth independently. |
| Buyer Profile Whether buyers are SMB operators, mid-market IT teams, or regulated enterprises and governments with procurement gates. | 2/3 | CodeIntegrity targets enterprise security teams and sells through demos with no self-service path, but no customer is public, so regulated enterprise buyers are the design intent rather than the demonstrated base. |
| Layer Whether the product is an end-user application, a platform with application features, or infrastructure other applications depend on. | 2/3 | The product is a control layer spanning the tools an agent calls, more than a single-use application, and the cited record identifies no downstream software built on or dependent on CodeIntegrity. |
| Proprietary Data, Content, or IP Whether the product accumulates datasets, content licenses, or IP that a rival cannot recreate from scratch. | 1/3 | The runtime-mediation engine and the exploit research are real IP, but they are rebuildable engineering a funded rival could recreate, and nothing public shows a named non-public cross-customer dataset. The data position is replicable rather than a proprietary moat. |
CodeIntegrity targets enterprise security teams at organizations deploying AI agents into production. The pilot base is described only as companies in regulated industries, and the go-to-market language centers on giving those teams a control point between an agent's intent and its execution.
Segmentation beyond that is undisclosed. Fetched sources name no verticals, deployment sizes, or geographies, and with no customer public, the target segments are inferred from the pilot description rather than demonstrated by named deployments.
The demand clock is early. The newest dated disclosures are the May 2026 seed round and the unnamed regulated-industry pilots announced with it, financing and pilot signals rather than named customer demand, so the pitch is current while the evidence behind it stays unnamed.
The claimed capability is deterministic control over a non-deterministic agent. CodeIntegrity captures the tool or MCP call an agent proposes, evaluates intent, data provenance, and destination, and enforces policy before the action runs, framing the product as a translator and filter that forces an unpredictable model to follow predictable rules.
The demonstrated capability is offensive. The founders compromised Notion in under four hours, earning an Economist mention, and the research blog carries further exploit writeups against production agent products, which prove the team can break agent systems even though no benchmark or third-party evaluation of the defensive product is public.
A cross-customer data asset is possible but unproven. If CodeIntegrity aggregates the agent actions and blocked attacks it observes across its pilot customers, that runtime telemetry could become a detection asset a single-tenant rival cannot match, though nothing in the public record yet shows such a cross-customer corpus.
CodeIntegrity uses a demo-led motion with no public self-service signup. The site routes to a demo booking rather than a signup, the founders front the public voice, and the cited materials identify no sales team, which fits a company weeks past its seed round.
The visible distribution motion is research. The company publishes exploit writeups that draw press coverage, a motion that can reach security practitioners directly, and its earliest credibility came from the Economist-cited Notion work rather than a marketing campaign.
CodeIntegrity publishes no pricing, which signals negotiated enterprise deals and a sales-assisted motion. For a pre-reference vendor that is the expected posture, and it leaves buyers no way to size the spend without a conversation.
The charging unit will say the most once it appears. Pricing per monitored agent would match how buyers count the problem, while pricing per action volume would track the runtime work the platform performs, and nothing public commits the company to either.
The product sits in the agent's execution path, which sets a high operational bar. Blocking or allowing an action before it runs places CodeIntegrity in the critical path of business workflows, so latency, availability, and failure-mode questions will dominate technical evaluations, and the cited product pages publish no service-level or status information.
The architecture answer is runtime mediation with recorded evidence. The company describes capturing each request, its source context, destination, policy decision, and outcome, so security teams can review what an agent did without replaying a whole session, a design aimed at the audit and investigation needs of regulated buyers.
Inspectable trust collateral is limited to a self-displayed SOC 2 Type II badge. The homepage also aligns the company with the Cloud Security Alliance and the OWASP GenAI Security Project and its footer links a Trust Center at trust.codeintegrity.ai, but a 2026-07-15 probe found that subdomain does not resolve and /trust returns 404, so no trust portal or downloadable report was reachable behind the badge on the probed surfaces. These are table-stakes signals rather than a moat.
The product's access raises the bar. A layer that observes and blocks agent actions inside enterprise systems will face procurement reviews that two homepage badges do not answer, and the company's youth is a plausible drag on those reviews.
The public exploit writeups are the stronger trust signal. Research that breaks production agent products shows security depth the company's age would not predict.
Breadth across agent platforms is the platform claim. CodeIntegrity positions as one control point spanning the tools and MCP servers an agent calls, a neutral posture across agent platforms rather than a control tied to any one of them.
The ecosystem posture aligns with industry security bodies rather than a partner program. The company ties itself to the Cloud Security Alliance and the OWASP GenAI Security Project, and no marketplace listing, reseller motion, or public API documentation appears in fetched sources.
The founding pair is technically credible but early. CEO Steven Jung and CTO Abi Raghuram met at Rose-Hulman and founded the company in 2024, and neither shows a prior exit or senior security-leadership role in fetched sources.
Research output is the team's strongest credential. The Economist-cited Notion compromise and the blog's multiple exploit writeups are the visible output, while headcount, other executives, and go-to-market leadership remain undisclosed.
Investor validation is dense for the stage. SYN Ventures, a cybersecurity fund managing $900 million, led the seed with Antler and Boost VC, and SYN says it supports portfolio companies through CISO networks, design partners, and customer references.
| Id | Source | Tier | Accessed |
|---|---|---|---|
| f1 | CodeIntegrity homepage | official | 2026-07-03 |
| f2 | GeekWire on the CodeIntegrity seed round (Lisa Stiffler, May 27, 2026) | press | 2026-07-03 |
| f3 | The SaaS News on the CodeIntegrity seed round (May 28, 2026) | press | 2026-07-03 |
| f4 | CodeIntegrity seed round announcement (May 27, 2026) | official | 2026-07-03 |
| f5 | CodeIntegrity platform page | official | 2026-07-03 |
| Id | Source | Tier | Accessed |
|---|---|---|---|
| s1 | CodeIntegrity homepage “Full visibility into agent execution. Control tool calls, data flow, and risky actions before they run.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s2 | CodeIntegrity platform page “CodeIntegrity's AARM platform turns proposed agent actions into explicit control points teams can inspect, constrain, and approve before MCP servers or tools execute.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s3 | CodeIntegrity About page “Autonomous agents blur a line traditional security depends on: the difference between instructions, data, and actions. CodeIntegrity is reinventing that boundary.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s4 | CodeIntegrity seed round announcement (May 27, 2026) “CodeIntegrity, Inc. today announced its $5 million seed round, led by SYN Ventures, with continued support from Antler and Boost VC. SYN manages $900m AUM across its funds.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s5 | CodeIntegrity research blog index “Research, exploit writeups, and practical notes on agent runtime risk.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s6 | GeekWire on the CodeIntegrity founders (Lisa Stiffler, May 27, 2026) “CodeIntegrity's co-founders are CEO Steven Jung and CTO Abi Raghuram. Raghuram and Jung met at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, and founded CodeIntegrity in the Seattle area in May 2024. The company still has employees in Washington state.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s7 | GeekWire on the CodeIntegrity threat framing (Lisa Stiffler, May 27, 2026) “Earning a mention in The Economist last September for compromising the note-taking app Notion in less than four hours. Every company was aiming to launch agents into deployment, and they didn't know how to do it safely, said Abi Raghuram.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s8 | GeekWire on CodeIntegrity pilots and rivals (Lisa Stiffler, May 27, 2026) “There's going to be more and more agents being deployed in enterprise settings, and no one has figured security out yet, said Steven Jung. CodeIntegrity's product is currently being piloted with companies in regulated industries. Other startups tackle agentic AI security, including Seattle's Certiv.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s9 | GeekWire on CodeIntegrity funding total (Lisa Stiffler, May 27, 2026) “Cybersecurity-focused Syn Ventures led the new round, with participation from existing pre-seed investors Antler and Boost VC. The company has raised a total of $5.25 million.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s10 | The SaaS News on the CodeIntegrity seed round (May 28, 2026) “CodeIntegrity, a San Francisco, CA-based AI security startup building deterministic runtime controls for autonomous AI agents, has raised $5 million in seed round.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s11 | Richard Stiennon: 17 More AI Security Vendors (May 25, 2026) “The pace at which we discover new AI Security vendors is not slowing. Here are the 17 AI Security vendors added to dashboard.it-harvest.com in the past two weeks.” | other | 2026-07-03 |
| s12 | CodeIntegrity trust-surface probe (homepage footer, /trust, trust subdomain, July 3 2026) “Rendered homepage displays a SOC 2 Type II badge, Cloud Security Alliance and OWASP GenAI alignment, and a Trust Center footer link to trust.codeintegrity.ai, which does not resolve (NXDOMAIN); /trust returns 404 and no inspectable trust portal or report was found as of July 3 2026.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| Id | Source | Tier | Accessed |
|---|---|---|---|
| s1 | CodeIntegrity homepage “Full visibility into agent execution. Control tool calls, data flow, and risky actions before they run.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s2 | CodeIntegrity platform page “CodeIntegrity's AARM platform turns proposed agent actions into explicit control points teams can inspect, constrain, and approve before MCP servers or tools execute.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s3 | CodeIntegrity About page “Autonomous agents blur a line traditional security depends on: the difference between instructions, data, and actions. CodeIntegrity is reinventing that boundary.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s4 | CodeIntegrity seed round announcement (May 27, 2026) “CodeIntegrity, Inc. today announced its $5 million seed round, led by SYN Ventures, with continued support from Antler and Boost VC. SYN manages $900m AUM across its funds.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s5 | CodeIntegrity research blog index “Research, exploit writeups, and practical notes on agent runtime risk.” | official | 2026-07-03 |
| s6 | GeekWire on the CodeIntegrity founders (Lisa Stiffler, May 27, 2026) “CodeIntegrity's co-founders are CEO Steven Jung and CTO Abi Raghuram. Raghuram and Jung met at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, and founded CodeIntegrity in the Seattle area in May 2024. The company still has employees in Washington state.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s7 | GeekWire on the CodeIntegrity threat framing (Lisa Stiffler, May 27, 2026) “Earning a mention in The Economist last September for compromising the note-taking app Notion in less than four hours. Every company was aiming to launch agents into deployment, and they didn't know how to do it safely, said Abi Raghuram.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s8 | GeekWire on CodeIntegrity pilots and rivals (Lisa Stiffler, May 27, 2026) “There's going to be more and more agents being deployed in enterprise settings, and no one has figured security out yet, said Steven Jung. CodeIntegrity's product is currently being piloted with companies in regulated industries. Other startups tackle agentic AI security, including Seattle's Certiv.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s9 | GeekWire on CodeIntegrity funding total (Lisa Stiffler, May 27, 2026) “Cybersecurity-focused Syn Ventures led the new round, with participation from existing pre-seed investors Antler and Boost VC. The company has raised a total of $5.25 million.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s10 | The SaaS News on the CodeIntegrity seed round (May 28, 2026) “CodeIntegrity, a San Francisco, CA-based AI security startup building deterministic runtime controls for autonomous AI agents, has raised $5 million in seed round.” | press | 2026-07-03 |
| s11 | Richard Stiennon: 17 More AI Security Vendors (May 25, 2026) “The pace at which we discover new AI Security vendors is not slowing. Here are the 17 AI Security vendors added to dashboard.it-harvest.com in the past two weeks.” | other | 2026-07-03 |
| s12 | CodeIntegrity homepage footer: Trust Center link targeting trust.codeintegrity.ai, SOC 2 Type II text badge “SOC 2 Type II” | official | 2026-07-15 |
| s13 | Trust-subdomain probe 2026-07-15: trust.codeintegrity.ai, the footer Trust Center link target, does not resolve (NXDOMAIN) | official | 2026-07-15 |
| s14 | Trust-path probe 2026-07-15: /trust returns 404, no trust portal or downloadable report served | official | 2026-07-15 |
This site is an experimental research aid created by Zeltser Security Corp. All its data gathering and analysis was performed autonomously without human review, and it can contain errors of fact, interpretation, and judgment that a human reviewer might catch.
The analyses are statements of opinion, not statements of fact. Machine analysis produced the scores, summaries, and matrix placements by weighing the public sources each page cites, and reasonable people can weigh the same sources differently. Where a page states a fact, it cites the public source and the date it was checked, and the statement is only as accurate as that source. Unless a profile expressly says otherwise, the analysis involves no hands-on testing and no independent validation of any company's products or services.
Nothing here is professional, security, legal, financial, investment, or purchasing advice, and nothing here is a recommendation to invest in, do business with, or avoid any company. Inclusion of a company is not an endorsement, and absence of a company is not a judgment about it. Reading this site creates no advisory or client relationship. Verify any detail you plan to act on against the vendor's current materials.
The content is provided "as is" and "as available," with all warranties disclaimed, express or implied, including merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, accuracy, and non-infringement. No entry is warranted to be complete, current, or correct. Companies change, vendors update their claims, sources can be wrong, and automated analysis can misread them.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the operator, Zeltser Security Corp, is not liable for any damages that arise from using this site or relying on its content, including direct, indirect, incidental, special, and consequential damages and lost profits, even if advised that such damages were possible. If you are dissatisfied with the site or disagree with these terms, your remedy is to stop using it.
Entries link to vendor pages, press coverage, and other external sites that Zeltser Security Corp does not control and is not responsible for. A link is not an affiliation with the destination or an endorsement of it. Product and company names and trademarks are the property of their owners, used here nominatively to identify the companies described. Short quotations from cited sources appear for identification and commentary.
Use, quotation, automated retrieval, and redistribution of the content are governed by the Terms of Use at cybercompanyprofiles.com/terms, which permit personal and internal business use with attribution and prohibit republication and resale.