Jitterbit Security Assessment
Data & Analytics
Data & application integration suite providing business users a quick, cost-effective and simple way to design, deploy and manage a broad range of integrations.
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 05:28 PM
Assessment Transparency
See exactly what data backs this security assessment
Data Coverage
3/8 security categories assessed
Score based on 3 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
AI Integration Security
🔒 9th DimensionAssess whether Jitterbit is safe for AI agent integration. Identify Shadow AI risks before they become breaches using Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) standards.
AI Readiness
Infrastructure for AI integration
AI Security
Safety controls for AI agents
Comprehensive Security Analysis
In-depth assessment with detailed recommendations
Security Analysis
Executive Summary
| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Security Grade | B+ | Needs Improvement |
| Risk Level | Medium-High | Executive approval required |
| Enterprise Readiness | 54% | 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 |
| 🟡 Compliance & Certification | 75/100 | good | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟡 Data Protection | 70/100 | good | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 Incident Response | 60/100 | needs_improvement | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 Identity & Access Management | 55/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
| 🟠 API Security | 50/100 | needs_improvement | Add rate limiting and authentication |
| 🟠 Infrastructure Security | 30/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
Overall Grade: B+ (59/100)
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:
- Business performance metrics and KPIs
- Customer behavior analytics
- Revenue and financial analytics
Risk Level: MEDIUM - Contains
Compliance & Certifications
AI Integration Security Assessment
Industry-first assessment evaluating whether Jitterbit is safe and ready for AI agent integration. Covers AI security controls and readiness infrastructure for Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP).
AI Integration Security
Industry-first assessment for AI agent safety
✅Excellent Security Features
- ●Users in non-admin roles with Read or higher environment access have read-only access.
- ●Permissions may grant one or more of the following access rights to a data object: Read - Allows users to query the data object. Insert - Allows users to insert records. Update - Allows users to update records and execute user-defined events. Delete - Allows users to delete records.
- ●You can retrieve the logs of Harmony user activity taking place in the Management Console, API Manager, and Studio, and external users accessing the API Portal page... Audit logs are retained for 30 days after the user activity takes place.
- ●SOC for Cybersecurity from AICPA.org mentioned as compliance resource; ISO 42001, ISO 27001, ISO 27017, and ISO 27018 certification documented
- ●Penetration testing - OWASP checks - Jitterbit Operations - Jitterbit Engineering - Jitterbit QA
- ●Comprehensive OAuth 2.0 and OIDC support with multiple grant types
- ●Detailed RBAC with data source and application-level permissions
- ●Full audit logging across Management Console, API Manager, and Studio
⚠️Security Gaps & Recommendations
- ●No pii redaction
- ●No training opt out
- ●No gdpr compliance
- ●No ai attribution
- ●No PII auto-redaction capabilities documented
- ●No AI training opt-out mechanism for customer data
- ●No AI-specific request attribution or tracking
AI Integration Security evaluates whether Jitterbit is safe for AI agent access. This assessment considers authentication strength, access controls, observability capabilities, and data privacy protections when APIs are accessed by AI systems like Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, or custom AI agents.
AI Readiness Assessment
Evaluates readiness for AI agent integration
Official or community MCP server support
API docs, SDKs, code examples
API reference, auth flows, error handling
MCP Server Available
communityJitterbit supports Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) for secure AI agent integration.
💡Recommendations
- →❌ Poor AI readiness - not recommended for AI workflows
AI Readiness measures whether Jitterbitprovides the infrastructure and developer resources necessary for secure AI agent integration. High readiness indicates official MCP server support, comprehensive API documentation, and developer-friendly tools.
API Intelligence
Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for Jitterbit.
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.
Security Posture & Operational Capabilities
Comprehensive assessment of Jitterbit'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 Jitterbit yet.
Compare with Alternatives
How does Jitterbit stack up against similar applications in Data & Analytics? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.
| Application | Overall ScoreScore↓ | Grade | AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅ | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
JitterbitCurrent | 59/100🏆 | B+ | 76.8/100 | |
44/100 | C | N/A | View ProfileView | |
40/100 | C | N/A | View ProfileView | |
39/100 | D+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
30/100 | D | N/A | View ProfileView | |
29/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView | |
28/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView |
Security Comparison Insight
Jitterbit has the highest security score (59/100) among these alternatives. Strong choice for security-conscious organizations.