Topic starter
07/06/2026 9:05 pm
TL;DR: CyberArk vs. Delinea highlights the same core problem from two angles: traditional PAM can vault secrets, rotate credentials, and record sessions, but it still struggles with onboarding, offboarding, Kubernetes, and modern infrastructure access, according to StrongDM. The bigger issue is that privileged access governance now spans cloud, containers, and third-party workflows that legacy PAM models only partially cover.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by StrongDM: “CyberArk vs. Delinea (Thycotic & Centrify): Which Is Better?”.
By the numbers:
- 64% of companies say infrastructure access affects productivity, according to StrongDM's Access-Productivity Report.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when traditional PAM only covers vaulting and session recording?
A: The control breaks at lifecycle and scope.
Q: Why does Kubernetes expose gaps in legacy PAM programmes?
A: Kubernetes often uses tokens, service accounts, and ephemeral access patterns that do not fit a classic privileged-session model.
Q: How do security teams know whether PAM is actually reducing privilege risk?
A: Measure how much privileged access is permanent, how often elevation is task-scoped, and whether session activity matches the approved purpose.
Practitioner guidance
- Audit privileged access coverage by environment Separate classic server and database admin access from Kubernetes, cloud, and third-party workflows so you can see where legacy PAM coverage stops and where modern access governance must begin.
- Test offboarding against real access paths Validate that role changes, contractor exits, and vendor offboarding remove access across every resource type, not just the vault or the primary admin account.
- Measure privilege scope, not only secret storage Review whether privileged users can reach only the systems they need, or whether a vaulted credential still unlocks too broad a set of databases, servers, and clusters.
Bottom line: Traditional PAM still helps with credentials and sessions, but it leaves modern access problems unresolved when cloud, Kubernetes, and third-party workflows enter the picture.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
08/06/2026 8:53 am
Traditional PAM has become a partial control, not a complete privilege model: vaulting, rotation, and session recording still matter, but they no longer describe the full access problem in cloud and hybrid environments. The article shows that the discipline has shifted from protecting privileged credentials to governing privileged access across platforms, workflows, and infrastructure types. Practitioners should read this as a scope issue, not a feature checklist.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 74% of organizations report identity-related breaches, and privileged access is a leading cause of lateral movement.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between privileged credential storage and privileged access governance?
A: Privileged credential storage protects secrets, while privileged access governance controls who gets access, where it applies, and when it ends. A vault can secure credentials without proving that entitlement scope is right. Governance is broader because it includes lifecycle, delegation, and environment coverage.
👉 Read our full editorial: CyberArk vs. Delinea exposes the limits of traditional PAM
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group