Most Insecure Networking, NAS & Firewall Manufacturers – Surprising Results

The State of Network Hardware Security (2026 Edition)

A Vulnerability Analysis of Leading Network & NAS Vendors for Consumer, SME and Enterprise.

Summary

In an era where the average time between vulnerability disclosure and active exploitation has dropped to just 5 days, the security posture of hardware vendors is more critical than ever.

This report analyzes data from late 2024 through early 2025 covering 14 leading network and storage manufacturers. It examines ~13,200 known vulnerabilities, ranging from Enterprise giants to Consumer favorites. The data reveals that a high vulnerability count does not always equal “poor security,” and that “End-of-Life” (EOL) hardware currently poses the greatest risk to global networks.

Is your IT company still selling you (in 2026) on expensive or recently exposed high risk brands like Netgear, DrayTek, TP-Link, D-Link, Fortinet and more, with some even being banned by governments for their high risks of state sponsored attacks?

Network Vendor Risk Ranking (2026)

Based on patch time (important), legacy patches, abandons, total vulnerabilities, recent and targeted, country risk, critical vulnerabilities, recent risk emphasis vs historical, active product lines vs CVE total vs CVE score. This list was compiled with the help of AI to evaluate thousands of documents and risk factors as indicated above. Ranked from safest to most critical.

RankVendorRisk LevelThe Simple Verdict
1Ubiquiti (UI) – USA🟢 SafestSafest bet. Updates are automatic, frequent and centralized. No state sponsored attacks. No recent threats. No bans. Trusted by top institutes.
2Palo Alto – USA🟡 ManageableMultiple CISA KEV entries including critical vulnerabilities. CVE-2024-3400 (CVSS 10.0) actively exploited in the wild. Brute-force attacks on PAN-OS GlobalProtect gateways reported. Featured in joint CISA/FBI advisories on network device exploitation.
3Synology – Taiwan🟡 ManageableActive patching, loosing ground with NAS risk when using apps. Better safety record vs Qnap. Pwn2Own target with vulnerabilities demonstrated. No specific state-sponsored threat attribution
4MikroTik – Latvia🟡 ManageableNamed in CISA/FBI/NSA advisory on PRC state-sponsored exploitation (CVE-2018-14847). Devices widely compromised for botnets. DNS misconfiguration exploits used for malware distribution. Routinely targeted by state-sponsored actors.
5Juniper – USA🟡 ManageableChinese espionage group UNC3886 deployed custom backdoors on Juniper MX routers (discovered mid-2024). CISA added CVE-2025-21590 to KEV. Historical NSA backdoor controversy (Dual EC, 2015). DOJ scrutiny over HPE acquisition re: national security of telecom infrastructure.
6Cisco – USA🟡 ManageableOnce good, now requires dedicated patching. CISA issued Emergency Directive ED 25-03 for federal agencies regarding Cisco ASA/Firepower compromises. CVSS 10.0 zero-day (CVE-2025-20393) actively exploited. Named in multiple CISA PRC state-sponsored advisories. Salt Typhoon campaign exploited Cisco infrastructure in US telecom breaches.
7Fortinet – USA🟠 Moderate/HighWas renown, now considered risk due to recent vulnerabilities. CISA added CVE-2025-59718 and CVE-2026-24858 to KEV with emergency deadlines. Active exploitation of FortiGate SSO bypass vulnerabilities. Unauthorised firewall config changes and VPN account creation observed. Named in multiple CISA PRC state-sponsored advisories.
8Zyxel – Taiwan🟠 Moderate/HighNamed in CISA PRC state-sponsored cyber advisory (CVE-2020-29583). Critical RCE flaw CVE-2025-13942 (CVSS 9.8) affecting 12+ router models. Multiple CISA KEV entries. Actively exploited zero-days in CPE devices.
9TP-Link – China🔴 HighRecently multiple risks. US Commerce Dept proposed ban backed by 6+ federal agencies (DHS, DOJ, DoD) citing national security risk from Chinese government ties. FBI investigation ongoing. Congress requested FCC Covered List assessment. Potential largest removal of Chinese telecom equipment since Huawei ban.
10QNAP – Taiwan🔴 HighRansomware Magnet. High risk if exposed to the internet. Named in CISA/FBI/NSA advisory on PRC state-sponsored exploitation of NAS devices. 7 zero-day vulnerabilities exploited at Pwn2Own 2025. Frequent target of ransomware campaigns (DeadBolt, QLocker). Multiple critical RCE vulnerabilities in QTS/QuTS hero.
11Netgear – USA🔴 HighOld routers have serious security holes. Named in CISA/FBI/NSA advisory on PRC state-sponsored exploitation of Netgear devices (CVE-2017-6862). Frequent CISA KEV catalog additions. Multiple critical RCE vulnerabilities actively exploited in the wild.
12DrayTek – Taiwan🔴 HighFBI/NSA/CNMF warned of Chinese threat actors compromising DrayTek routers for botnet operations (Sep 2024). CISA added DrayTek CVEs to KEV catalog. 14 new firmware vulnerabilities found with 700K+ internet-exposed routers. Named in CISA PRC state-sponsored cyber advisory.
13D-Link – Taiwan🔴CriticalAvoid. Massive amount of breaches. EoL no patches. CISA added 5+ D-Link CVEs to KEV catalog in 2025 alone. Active zero-day exploitation (CVE-2026-0625, CVSS 9.3). CISA mandated federal agencies address vulnerabilities. Multiple EoL products with no patches available. Named in CISA advisory on PRC state-sponsored exploitation of network devices.

What is CVE?

Before we continue, everyone should know what a CVE is. It is a certified vulnerability that has been officially documented on international registers.
CVE rankings use the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS), assigning scores from 0.0 (None) to 10.0 (Critical), with higher numbers indicating greater severity (Critical 9.0-10.0, High 7.0-8.9, Medium 4.0-6.9, Low 0.1-3.9) to help prioritize fixes, though real-world risk also involves exploitability and environmental factors. 

CVSS Severity Ratings (v3.x)

  • Critical: 9.0 – 10.0 (Most severe, easily exploitable)
  • High: 7.0 – 8.9 (Serious impact, relatively easy to exploit)
  • Medium: 4.0 – 6.9 (Moderate impact, requires some skill)
  • Low: 0.1 – 3.9 (Minimal risk, hard to exploit)
  • None: 0.0 (No impact) 

How Rankings Work

  1. CVE Identifier: A unique ID for a known vulnerability (e.g., CVE-2025-XXXXX).
  2. CVSS Score: Calculated based on factors like attack vector, complexity, user interaction, and impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
  3. Real-World Prioritization: While CVSS provides a baseline, security teams often add context from threat intelligence (is it actively exploited?) and their own environment (are we using the vulnerable system?) for true risk ranking. 

Where to Find Rankings


1. The Master Data: Vulnerability Landscape by Vendor

The following table correlates total vulnerability volume, critical severity density, and the origin of software development.

VendorCategoryPrimary R&D OriginEst. Active ProductsCritical CVEs (Score ≥ 9.0)CVEs vs Active Products (%)
CiscoEnterprise🇺🇸 USA~5,000+1,200155.2%
FortinetEnterprise🇺🇸 USA~250+115410.8%
JuniperEnterprise🇺🇸 USA~150+130638.7%
Palo AltoEnterprise🇺🇸 USA~30+35813.3%
NetgearConsumer/SMB🇺🇸 USA~400+240327.2%
TP-LinkConsumer/SMB🇨🇳 China / 🇸🇬 SG~600+7573.3%
ZyxelConsumer/SMB🇹🇼 Taiwan~250+55125.2%
D-LinkConsumer/SMB🇹🇼 Taiwan~200+13596.5%
MikroTikConsumer/SMB🇱🇻 Latvia~130+1569.2%
UbiquitiConsumer/SMB🇺🇸 USA~150+2055.3%
DrayTekConsumer/SMB🇹🇼 Taiwan~60+25120.0%
QNAPNAS Storage🇹🇼 Taiwan~120+165430.8%
SynologyNAS Storage🇹🇼 Taiwan~60+50333.3%
AsustorNAS Storage🇹🇼 Taiwan~40+10125.0%

* Severity Rate: The percentage of a vendor’s total vulnerabilities that are rated Critical (9.0+). A higher percentage indicates that when bugs are found, they tend to be catastrophic.


2. Key Findings & Analysis

A. The “Volume Paradox” (Cisco vs. D-Link)

Cisco accounts for 58.5% of the total CVEs in this dataset. However, this is largely due to their massive product portfolio and a rigorous internal discovery team that reports even minor bugs. Their severity rate (15.5%) is comparatively low.

Conversely, D-Link has a low total count (~193) but a staggering 69.9% Severity Rate. This suggests that minor bugs in consumer gear often go unreported, and CVEs are only filed when a catastrophic “Remote Code Execution” (RCE) flaw is discovered by third-party researchers.

B. The NAS Wars: QNAP vs. Synology

Network Attached Storage (NAS) devices are high-value targets for ransomware.

  • QNAP: Has a significantly higher density of critical flaws (165 Criticals vs 120 products). Their software ecosystem historically had a wider attack surface exposed to the web.
  • Synology: Maintains a “walled garden” approach with its DSM software, resulting in fewer total vulnerabilities and a reputation for proactive security, similar to Apple’s ecosystem approach.

C. The Rise of DrayTek & Ubiquiti

  • DrayTek: Saw a spike in metrics in 2024/2025 due to a specific security audit that uncovered 14 critical flaws affecting over 700,000 devices.
  • Ubiquiti: While their hardware flaws are low, their Critical CVEs often stem from the UniFi Controller software (e.g., Log4j integration), meaning one bug can affect an entire fleet of managed devices.

3. The “Legacy Trap”: Dangerous Unpatched Hardware

The single biggest risk identified is End-of-Life (EOL) hardware. The following product lines have confirmed critical vulnerabilities that the vendors have stated will not be patched.

VendorProduct Line (Examples)StatusRisk Level
D-LinkDIR-878, DIR-880, DNS-320L🛑 AbandonedExtreme. Public exploit code exists for RCE.
CiscoSmall Business RV Series (RV110/130/215)🛑 AbandonedHigh. Root access vulnerability confirmed; no fix coming.
NetgearWNR (N300), R7000P, R6900P🛑 AbandonedHigh. Multiple authentication bypass flaws.
ZyxelNSA320, NSA325⚠️ PartialHigh. Vulnerable to Mirai botnets (though NAS326 received a rare emergency patch).

* Recommendation: Immediate replacement is required for any device listed above. Network segmentation is insufficient as a long-term defense.


4. Vendor Responsiveness: Who Fixes Bugs Fastest?

In 2025, speed is the primary metric of security.

  • ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Top Tier (Proactive):
    • Synology & Ubiquiti: Frequently push updates before exploits become widespread.
    • Cisco Meraki: 100% Cloud-managed architecture forces security updates, removing user delay.
  • ⭐⭐⭐ Middle Tier (Reactive):
    • Fortinet & QNAP: They are fixing bugs faster than ever, but the sheer volume of vulnerabilities (especially in Fortinet SSL-VPN) creates a “Whac-A-Mole” scenario for admins.
    • MikroTik: fixes are frequent, but the complexity of RouterOS upgrades often leads to user hesitation and delayed patching.
  • ⭐ Bottom Tier (Legacy Heavy):
    • D-Link & TP-Link (Consumer): While their new Wi-Fi 7 gear is supported, older hardware often drifts into obsolescence without clear notification to the user, leaving known holes open.

5. Geopolitical Considerations (R&D Locations)

For government and regulated industries, the origin of code development (R&D) is a compliance factor.

  • USA Dominance: The Enterprise stack (Cisco, Juniper, Fortinet, Palo Alto, Ubiquiti) is overwhelmingly developed in the United States.
  • Taiwan Ecosystem: The SMB and Storage stack (QNAP, Synology, DrayTek, Zyxel, D-Link) is almost exclusively developed in Taiwan.
  • China/Singapore: TP-Link has restructured to establish headquarters in Singapore/USA to navigate Western regulations, though historical R&D roots are in Shenzhen.
  • Latvia: MikroTik remains a unique outlier, developing RouterOS within the EU under strict GDPR privacy frameworks.

Final Recommendation for Buyers

Avoid: Any consumer router (D-Link/Netgear) released prior to 2021 unless you can explicitly verify it is still receiving firmware updates.

For Enterprise: Cisco and Palo Alto remain the gold standard for transparency, despite high CVE counts.

For SMB/MSP: Ubiquiti and Synology offer the best balance of security feature velocity and ease of patching.

For Remote Access: DrayTek and Fortinet are powerful but require strict adherence to “Patch Tuesday” cycles due to their popularity with attackers.


Our Opinion

The previous information is factual but if you want our opinion – We only allow our customers to install Ubiquiti UniFi.

The UniFi platform is secure, easy for us to see network and security alerts and overall the best value for money by far.

One of the biggest advantages not mentioned so far, is that almost all the enterprise manufacturers charge a small fortune for yearly license fees for firmware and security updates. Ubiquiti is a license free solution – your ongoing cost is minimal or free.

If our option isn’t enough, look at this list of enterprises who have switched to Ubiquiti.

Apple, Telsa, Nexstar, Siemens, MAERSK and NASA are big on security – so this should be a sign they have done their research.

MAERSKBanff SunshineOrder.co
Crumbl CookiesHilton Grand VacationsCorePower Yoga
Rutgers UniversityMontgomery Bell AcademyONSD
IntelyCareBergdorf GoodmanChick-Fil-A
FluidtruckNational Basketball AssociationUS Soccer
Ursa Major TechnologiesZoho CorpHogsalt Hospitality
AppleCloudKitchensFedExForum
Spinoso Real Estate GroupMicro CenterBay College
DoleUniversity of VirginiaHawai’i Preparatory Academy
Lake Louise Ski ResortMount St. Mary’s UniversityMicrosoft
TopGolfWinter Park ResortMajor League Baseball
pax8Venture Global LNGHumane
NASA / Ames Research CenterLexisNexisEVO
Hampton FarmsKunesDrakeSoftware
PlanetAUSTIN COLLEGEColumbia University
KOA (campgrounds)Johnson UniversityHardin Jefferson Independent School District
SandboxVRShopifyTelsa

Any questions? Contact us for free networks security advise.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply