Data & Analytics Top 100 / #1ARD = Agentic Resource Discovery · A2A = Agent2Agent · MCP = Model Context Protocol

Data/agent framework · MIT · GitHub; LlamaCloud

LlamaIndex

Widely used data/RAG framework with agent and workflow primitives. Publisher: LlamaIndex. Also ranked in Technology & Software Engineering (#29), Supply Chain, Manufacturing & Logistics (#49), Cybersecurity (#53).

Vendor page ↗+ CompareExport JSON

Trust profileas of 2026-10-26

Publisherlikely · Repository ownership or inferred publisher domain — repository or Hub account ownershiplikely

Complianceno evidence about this agent · 4 vendor-level records (inherited)T5

Security9 CVEs linked in the registry · 9 critical/high · newest 2026-10-22linked

ProtocolsModel Context Protocol (MCP) probed, not foundAgent2Agent (A2A) probed, not foundAgentic Resource Discovery (ARD) probed, not found0 / 3

TracesNone found — nobody has published what this agent does under attacknone

Issues found0 regulator actions · 0 incidents · 0 withdrawn certificates · CVEs: see Securitylinks only

Publisher unconfirmed: the evidence below is shown but not counted in the governance score, because nothing yet ties this listing to LlamaIndex beyond repository or Hub account ownership. A vendor-domain page, marketplace listing, ARD manifest or A2A card would confirm it.

Evidence available — not a safety certification. Suitability depends on your task, deployment and permissions. Rows marked vendor-level describe LlamaIndex, not this agent specifically.

Traces — under attack, in defence, in incidents

none public · what a trace is

No public trace found. Nobody has published what LlamaIndex does when its inputs carry instructions it should not follow, when a tool asks for credentials, or when a task invites a destructive command. Defenders can't learn from what they can't see: run it in a sandbox before the pilot and keep the transcript, or ask the vendor to publish one.

● third-party or vendor report · ◎ this registry's own probe transcript · ⚠ data left the environment. A trace describes one version on one date; it is evidence of behaviour, never a certification. Rows marked unreviewed have not yet been checked against their source by the maintainer.

CVEs — on the official record

9 linked · the registry

CVE-2026-114510

2026-10-22

Flexible GraphRAG is a Python framework for building graph and retrieval-augmented generation applications across multiple graph, vector, and search backends. From 0.6.0 until 0.8…

— · unreviewed

High 7.1

CVE-2024-14021

2026-01-12

LlamaIndex (run-llama/llama_index) versions up to and including 0.11.6 contain an unsafe deserialization vulnerability in BGEM3Index.load_from_disk() in llama_index/indices/manage…

Code execution · unreviewed

High 8.4

CVE-2024-58339

2026-01-12

LlamaIndex (run-llama/llama_index) versions up to and including 0.12.2 contain an uncontrolled resource consumption vulnerability in the VannaPack VannaQueryEngine implementation.…

Denial of service · unreviewed

High 8.7

CVE-2024-12704

2025-03-20

A vulnerability in the LangChainLLM class of the run-llama/llama_index repository, version v0.12.5, allows for a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. The stream_complete method execute…

Denial of service · fix known · unreviewed

High 7.5

CVE-2024-12911

2025-03-20

A vulnerability in the `default_jsonalyzer` function of the `JSONalyzeQueryEngine` in the run-llama/llama_index repository allows for SQL injection via prompt injection. This can…

Prompt injection · fix known · unreviewed

High 7.1

CVE-2024-4181

2024-05-16

A command injection vulnerability exists in the RunGptLLM class of the llama_index library, version 0.9.47, used by the RunGpt framework from JinaAI to connect to Language Learnin…

Code execution · fix known · unreviewed

High 8.8

CVE-2024-3271

2024-04-16

A command injection vulnerability exists in the run-llama/llama_index repository, specifically within the safe_eval function. Attackers can bypass the intended security mechanism,…

Code execution · fix known · unreviewed

Critical 9.8

CVE-2024-3098

2024-04-10

A vulnerability was identified in the `exec_utils` class of the `llama_index` package, specifically within the `safe_eval` function, allowing for prompt injection leading to arbit…

Prompt injection · Code execution · unreviewed

Critical 9.8

1 more · All 9 in the registry → Severity is the official record's; nothing here enters the score. Links are by listed product, so a CVE that names a different component of the same platform may be missing.

Compliance evidence

Jurisdiction: EU + US · 8 frameworks shown

–

ISO 27001

T5 Unknown

Nothing found in the sources checked.

Scope: — · registries, marketplaces, vendor pages

ask the vendor

–

ISO 27701

T5 Unknown

Nothing found in the sources checked.

Scope: — · registries, marketplaces, vendor pages

ask the vendor

–

ISO 42001

T5 Unknown

Nothing found in the sources checked.

Scope: — · registries, marketplaces, vendor pages

ask the vendor

–

CSA STAR

T5 Unknown

Nothing found in the sources checked.

Scope: — · CSA STAR Registry

ask the vendor

"Unknown" means nothing was found in the sources checked — registries, marketplaces and the vendor's own pages. It is not a finding of non-compliance; ask the vendor.

About the vendor — inherited, not agent-specific

4 records matched at organisation level

○

GDPR · DPA available

T4 Vendor-claimed · vendor-level

Vendor-claimed

Scope: entity · vendor page · 2026-10-26

re-check 2026-11-02

○

HIPAA

T4 Vendor-claimed · vendor-level

BAA available

Scope: entity · vendor page · 2026-10-26

re-check 2026-11-02

○

HIPAA · BAA available

T4 Vendor-claimed · vendor-level

BAA available

Scope: entity · vendor page · 2026-10-26

re-check 2026-11-02

○

SOC 2 · SOC 2 Type II

T4 Vendor-claimed · vendor-level

Vendor-claimed

Scope: entity · vendor page · 2026-10-26

re-check 2026-11-02

A vendor-level registry entry proves the organisation was assessed; whether this agent is inside that scope is a question for the vendor. These rows do not count toward the agent's evidence tier.

✔ found · ○ claimed · – not found · ⚠ expired, stale or revoked. Every row links to its source.Dispute or correct this dossier

GDPR, assembled from checks

GDPR● 0 found in registries or documents○ 1 vendor-claimed⚠ 0 issues linkedas of 2026-10-26

○ ClaimedDPA available: Vendor-claimed (vendor page, 2026-10-26). A DPA is a contract you still have to sign and review.

– Not foundNo Article 42 GDPR seal. "GDPR certified" is never shown without one.

☐ You checkYour lawful basis, DPIA, and whether this agent is inside the certificate scope.

News and chatter

last 90 days · linked with confidence ≥ 0.85

2026-09-21

llama_index release v0.14.25

GitHub releases · # Release Notes ## [2026-09-21] ### llama-index-agent-agentmesh [0.3.0] - fix: resolve a ton of security alerts ([#22855](https://github.com/run-llama/llama_index/pull/22855)) ### llama-index-agent-azure [0.4.0] - fix: resolve a ton of

Product update

2026-08-19

llama_index release v0.14.24

GitHub releases · # Release Notes ## [2026-08-19] ### llama-index-core [0.14.24] - fix: close HotpotQA evaluator file handles ([#22113](https://github.com/run-llama/llama_index/pull/22113)) - fix(core): preserve oversized leaf nodes in CodeSplitter ([#221

Product update

Headline, link and a summary attributed to the outlet. News never changes trust or domain scores.

Data & Analytics score

data profile · sar-score-2.0 · #1 of 100 in the curated list

Adoption / usage27 / 30

Trust & security16 / 25

Project / product health20 / 20

Ecosystem / interoperability14 / 15

Domain expertise / fit72 / 100

Governance / compliance evidence0 / 100

Docs / transparency10 / 10

Raw component / maximum, then weighted by the data profile (adoption 25, trust 20, project 20, ecosystem 15, domain 15, governance 0, docs 5). Trust and governance are computed from the evidence on this page (vendor-level rows at half credit); the other components come from the curated workbook, whose order is the rank. Unknown components count as 0 and are never imputed.

Before you deploy

Derived from the evidence ledger. This agent is not yet in the reference set, so deployment questions (credentials, approval, data handling) are not answered here — ask the vendor.

Evidence supporting this use (4)

GDPR DPA available — vendor-claimed, vendor-level source

HIPAA — vendor-claimed, vendor-level source

HIPAA BAA available — vendor-claimed, vendor-level source

SOC 2 Type II — vendor-claimed, vendor-level source

Unknowns to check (6)

Your lawful basis and DPIA for PHI and personal data the agent will touch

That the SOC 2 report period covers the components you will use; request the report under NDA

That the HIPAA BAA is offered for this product tier and region

The transfer mechanism you will rely on; DPF covers EU-to-US transfers only

Ask the vendor for ISO 27001, ISO 27701, ISO 42001, CSA STAR evidence; none was found in the sources checked

Whether the agent exposes MCP or A2A endpoints; none were observed

Suggested restrictions for a pilot (1)

No public trace of this agent under adversarial input was found. Run it in a sandbox against your own prompt-injection and tool-abuse scenarios before the pilot, and keep the transcript; the enterprise edition records one.

Rules: config/deploy_rules.json. Advice for a bounded pilot, not a verdict.

Provenance

seed workbookscores, rank, category

vendor pageclaims

NVDsecurity (CVE keyword search)

Hacker News, GDELT, vendor feedsnews and chatter

First seen2026-10-26

Recordres_09ec8a8406dfdc47

Open the full record (JSON) →