Topic starter
12/06/2026 12:12 am
TL;DR: Open-source LLM gateways can abstract model routing, but LiteLLM’s gaps around built-in authentication, audit logging, and policy controls push many teams toward alternatives that better fit security and compliance needs, according to Pomerium. The real issue is not model access alone, but whether identity, logging, and policy enforcement exist at the gateway boundary.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Pomerium: “LiteLLM Alternatives: Best Open-Source and Secure LLM Gateways in 2025”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when an LLM gateway has no built-in authentication?
A: Without gateway authentication, teams lose the ability to tie model requests to a specific user, workload, or application.
Q: Why do audit logs matter so much for LLM gateway governance?
A: Audit logs matter because they show who accessed which model, under what context, and whether policy allowed the request.
Q: When should teams use contextual policy instead of broad LLM access?
A: Teams should use contextual policy whenever model access varies by role, device, location, or time.
Practitioner guidance
- Define gateway authentication requirements Require OIDC or equivalent federation at the gateway so each request is tied to a known user or workload identity before it reaches a model provider.
- Standardise request-level audit logging Capture caller identity, policy decision, downstream model, and request context in every log record so security teams can reconstruct access decisions.
- Apply context-aware access policies Use role, device, location, and time as policy inputs to narrow LLM access instead of relying on broad network placement or shared tokens.
Bottom line: The article frames LiteLLM alternatives as a governance question, not just a tooling preference, because access control and auditability sit at the gateway boundary.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group
12/06/2026 9:17 am
LLM gateways are becoming identity control planes whether vendors label them that way or not. Once multiple providers sit behind a single access layer, the gateway inherits the governance burden that IAM teams usually expect from the application stack. If the gateway cannot authenticate users, enforce policy, and preserve logs, then model abstraction becomes an operational convenience with weak accountability. Practitioners should treat gateway choice as an identity architecture decision, not a developer tooling preference.
A few things that frame the scale:
- AI-related credential leaks surged 81.5% year-over-year in 2025, with the surrounding AI infrastructure leaking 5x faster than core LLM providers, according to the State of Secrets Sprawl 2026.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should security teams decide between a gateway and custom proxy approach?
A: The decision should come down to whether the team needs only routing or also identity enforcement, logging, and policy governance. If the use case is a shared AI environment with compliance expectations, the access layer must support more than traffic forwarding. If it cannot, the organisation will need compensating controls elsewhere.
👉 Read our full editorial: LiteLLM alternatives expose the access-control gap in LLM gateways
This post was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group