Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
03/06/2026 6:13 pm
TL;DR: Legacy PAM tools are described as strong for Windows, LDAP, and older databases, but less suited to cloud-native databases, Kubernetes, CLIs, and ephemeral environments, according to StrongDM’s comparison. The governance issue is no longer just access centralisation. It is whether privileged access controls can still follow modern infrastructure without turning into brittle, partial coverage.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by StrongDM: Competitors and alternatives to CyberArk in 2026
By the numbers:
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
- 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern privileged access across cloud and legacy systems?
A: Teams should govern privileged access by resource class, not with one uniform assumption set.
Q: Why do standing admin credentials create more risk in modern environments?
A: Standing admin credentials create more risk because they extend the time window in which an account can be abused, misused, or forgotten.
Q: What breaks when privileged session logging does not cover every protocol?
A: When session logging misses a protocol, the programme loses evidence of what actually happened during privileged access.
Practitioner guidance
- Map privileged access by resource class Separate legacy servers, cloud databases, Kubernetes, CLIs, and internal web apps into distinct governance groups.
- Audit audit-log coverage by protocol Verify whether your session replay and logging stack captures SSH, RDP, database queries, kubectl actions, and API-driven access with equal fidelity.
- Reduce standing privilege in administrator workflows Replace long-lived admin credentials with short-lived access wherever the workflow permits, and confirm that offboarding actually removes access across every managed system rather than only the primary directory.
What's in the full article
StrongDM's full comparison covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Side-by-side product specifics for CyberArk, StrongDM, Okta ASA, Vault, and bastion hosts.
- Practical feature notes on session replay, audit logging, and access workflows for different infrastructure types.
- Pricing and deployment trade-offs that matter once a team moves from evaluation to implementation.
- Use-case commentary on where each option fits legacy environments versus cloud-native estates.
👉 Read StrongDM's comparison of CyberArk alternatives for modern access control →
CyberArk alternatives: where legacy PAM falls short in cloud?
Explore further
03/06/2026 6:15 pm
Legacy PAM is a partial control plane, not a universal privileged access model. The article shows that centralised authentication and session management still have value, but only within the infrastructure assumptions those tools were built for. Windows servers, LDAP, and older databases map cleanly to that world, while Kubernetes, cloud CLIs, and ephemeral environments do not. Practitioners should treat legacy PAM coverage as bounded, not default-complete.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools, according to NHI Mgmt Group research.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between centralised PAM and cloud-native privileged access governance?
A: Centralised PAM is built to control access through a relatively fixed set of administrator workflows and server types. Cloud-native privileged access governance has to deal with ephemeral infrastructure, automation-heavy access, and more diverse protocols. The difference is not just scale. It is the need for lifecycle, logging, and revocation to work across a far broader set of resources.
👉 Read our full editorial: CyberArk alternatives expose the limits of legacy PAM models
