Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
07/06/2026 9:24 pm
TL;DR: Google Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy centralizes access for GCP resources and HTTPS apps, but StrongDM’s comparison shows it can be a poor fit for multi-cloud infrastructure, SSH, RDP, databases, and Kubernetes because it needs extra configuration, has limited third-party integration, and does not protect activity within a project. For IAM teams, the issue is not access centralization alone but whether the control plane can govern credentials, sessions, and auditability across mixed environments.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by StrongDM: Access alternatives to Google Cloud Identity-Aware Proxy (IAP)
By the numbers:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
- Only 44% of organisations have implemented any policies to manage their AI agents, despite 92% agreeing that governing AI agents is critical to enterprise security.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams choose between Google Cloud IAP and a privileged access platform?
A: Choose based on what you need to govern, not on authentication alone.
Q: Why does access control become harder in multi-cloud environments?
A: Multi-cloud environments split identity, protocol, and audit responsibility across different control planes.
Q: What breaks when a gateway controls login but not in-session activity?
A: The organisation can approve entry without governing what happens after authentication.
Practitioner guidance
- Define the access boundary explicitly Document which resources are covered by your current gateway model and which still require separate control for databases, servers, Kubernetes, SSH, and RDP.
- Require hidden credentials for privileged paths For administrative access, prefer mediated access patterns where users never handle the underlying secret.
- Make session evidence part of approval criteria Do not count authentication as governance unless you can also review commands, queries, and resource actions after entry.
What's in the full article
StrongDM's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Side-by-side feature and limitation notes for Google Cloud IAP, StrongDM, Okta ASA, and Teleport
- Deployment considerations such as client requirements, audit log handling, and per-server maintenance overhead
- Resource-by-resource guidance for SSH, RDP, databases, servers, and Kubernetes access
- Pricing and packaging notes that matter when evaluating implementation trade-offs
👉 Read StrongDM's comparison of Google Cloud IAP alternatives →
Google Cloud IAP alternatives: what gaps do IAM teams need to close?
Explore further
08/06/2026 9:20 am
Google Cloud IAP alternatives are really a question about access scope, not access quality. The article shows that a proxy can be strong at centralising entry and still be weak at governing the wider resource estate. That distinction is crucial for IAM teams because the access problem changes once databases, servers, and Kubernetes enter the same operating model. The practitioner conclusion is simple: evaluate the full control plane, not just the login gate.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- In the same research, 96% of organisations store secrets outside of secrets managers in vulnerable locations including code, config files, and CI/CD tools.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between access centralisation and privileged access governance?
A: Access centralisation focuses on one place to authenticate and authorise entry. Privileged access governance goes further by hiding secrets, limiting session scope, logging actions, and supporting clean revocation. Centralisation can reduce friction, but governance is only complete when the organisation can prove what was accessed and by whom.
👉 Read our full editorial: Google Cloud IAP alternatives expose the limits of access centralization
