Skip to main content
Libraesva logo

Libraesva Security Assessment

Security & Compliance

Libraesva secures email communications, eliminates email borne threats, preserves email data and provides an environment for people to communicate safely.

Data: 7/8(88%)
HIGH Friction
SECURITY VERIFIED • SAASPOSTURE • JAN 2026
C
Top 50%
Libraesva logoLibraesva
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 .
41
Overall Score
Weighted average across all dimensions
C
Security Grade
Top 50%
65% confidence

Identity & Access Management

D+
Score:0
Weight:33%
Grade:D+ (Below Avg)

Compliance & Certification

D
Score:0
Weight:19%
Grade:D (Below Avg)

AI Integration Security

NEW
C+
Score:0
Weight:12%
Grade:C+ (Top 50%)

API Security

B
Score:0
Weight:14%
Grade:B (Top 25%)

Infrastructure Security

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

Data Protection

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

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 16, 2026 at 07:04 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

HIGH
Estimated: 4+ weeks
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.

30 data sources successful

Transparency indicators show data completeness and vendor accessibility

🤖

AI Integration Security

🔒 9th Dimension

Assess whether Libraesva 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

F
35/100
MCP Available
🔌 MCP Server50/100
👨‍💻 Developer Experience0/100
📚 Documentation50/100
Top Recommendation:
⚠️ Official MCP server not found. Best alternative: https://github.com/zabbix/community-templates/actions (Trust: 40/100)
🛡️

AI Security

Safety controls for AI agents

C+
47.8/100
NOT_RECOMMENDED
🔐 Authentication20%
🔒 Access Control65%
👁️ Observability40%
🔏 Data Privacy65%
✅ Excellent Security:
Our AI models operate directly on the device, eliminating any risk of data exfiltration... By deploying the Libraesva AI Engine directly on our Email Security appliance, we ensure that no customer data is exfiltrated and eliminate reliance on third-party providers
⚠️ Needs Attention:
No oauth scopes
🛡️Unique Assessment: Evaluating AI agent integration safety helps you make safer AI tool decisions than your competitors

Essential Security Analysis

Based on available security assessment data

41
Security Score
C
Security Grade
0
Compliance Frameworks

Compliance & Certifications

0
Active
0
Pending
6
Not Certified

AI Integration Security Assessment

Industry-first assessment evaluating whether Libraesva 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

C+
GRADE
Top 50%
47.8
AI Security Score
🔐Authentication
20
🛡️Access Control
65
👁️Observability
40
🔒Data Privacy
65
📊Confidence Score
89%
NOT_RECOMMENDED

Excellent Security Features

  • Our AI models operate directly on the device, eliminating any risk of data exfiltration... By deploying the Libraesva AI Engine directly on our Email Security appliance, we ensure that no customer data is exfiltrated and eliminate reliance on third-party providers
  • In an on-premise installation of the Libraesva appliances, Libraesva provides you with the software... In this configuration the data is stored on your own infrastructure and Libraesva does not have access to it. The appliances do not provide to Libraesva any personal data
  • The GDPR builds upon existing privacy legislation... Libraesva is ISO27001:2022 certified for software design, development and support in the security field and for provision of cloud services
  • Audit logs section exists in Admin Area with tracking capabilities mentioned
  • On-premise AI processing eliminates data exfiltration risks (95/100 training opt-out equivalent)
  • Strong data residency controls with customer-controlled infrastructure
  • ISO27001:2022 certified for security and cloud services

⚠️Security Gaps & Recommendations

  • No oauth scopes
  • No token expiration
  • No token rotation
  • No mfa enforcement
  • No pii redaction
  • No read only tokens
  • No ai attribution
  • No rate limiting
  • No webhooks
  • No soc2 certified
ℹ️

AI Integration Security evaluates whether Libraesva 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

F
GRADE
Critical
35.0
AI Readiness Score
🔌
MCP Server Availability(40% weight)

Official or community MCP server support

50
👨‍💻
Developer Experience(30% weight)

API docs, SDKs, code examples

0
📚
Documentation Quality(30% weight)

API reference, auth flows, error handling

50

MCP Server Available

community

Libraesva supports Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) for secure AI agent integration.

View MCP Server

💡Recommendations

  • ⚠️ Official MCP server not found. Best alternative: https://github.com/zabbix/community-templates/actions (Trust: 40/100)
  • ⚠️ ⚠️ Use with caution - review code before use
  • ❌ Poor AI readiness - not recommended for AI workflows
📊Confidence Score
90%
🕐Last Verified
10/14/2025
ℹ️

AI Readiness measures whether Libraesvaprovides 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 Libraesva.

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.

Security Posture & Operational Capabilities

Comprehensive assessment of Libraesva'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 Libraesva yet.

🤖

Security Automation APIs

Programmatic user management, data operations, and security controls

Compare with Alternatives

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

Application
Score
Grade
AI 🤖
Action
44🏆
CN/AView
43
CN/AView
LibraesvaCurrent
41
C47.8
35
D+N/AView
30
DN/AView
25
FN/AView
23
FN/AView
💡

Security Comparison Insight

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