Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 5:03 pm
TL;DR: Distributed applications now rely on growing numbers of credentials, API keys, and certificates, and Entro Security argues that embedded secrets and config-file storage are no longer adequate for modern secrets management. The real issue is that secrets governance still assumes centralized control can keep pace with sprawl, ownership gaps, and operational rotation work that most programmes cannot sustain.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Entro Security: HashiCorp Vault vs Akeyless SaaS secrets management
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern secrets across cloud and DevOps environments?
A: They should treat secrets as governed identities, not just stored values.
Q: Why do static secrets create more risk in distributed systems?
A: Static secrets accumulate reuse, duplication, and forgotten access over time.
Q: What do teams get wrong about dynamic secrets?
A: They often assume short-lived credentials solve the governance problem on their own.
Practitioner guidance
- Map every secret to an owner and workload Build a register that ties each credential, certificate, and token to a named business owner, consuming service, and retirement trigger.
- Separate storage control from lifecycle control Do not treat vault adoption as proof of governance maturity.
- Review where dynamic secrets still create standing access Check whether ephemeral credentials are being reused, cached, or extended by downstream systems in ways that recreate long-lived privilege.
What's in the full article
Entro Security's full blog covers the product-level and architecture-level detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Feature-by-feature comparison of HashiCorp Vault and Akeyless across deployment models and integration options
- Detailed discussion of distributed fragments cryptography and zero-knowledge architecture
- Pricing and packaging differences between the two approaches
- Examples of supported environments, including CI/CD, databases, and cloud platforms
👉 Read Entro Security's comparison of HashiCorp Vault and Akeyless for secrets management →
Secrets management architecture: what changes for NHI teams?
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services →
25/06/2026 5:31 pm
Centralised secrets storage is not the same thing as secrets governance: A vault can hold credentials, but it does not automatically answer who owns them, where they are deployed, or when they should be retired. That distinction matters because distributed applications create more copies than any single repository can track. Practitioners should treat visibility across the secret lifecycle as the control objective, not storage alone.
A few things that frame the scale:
- The average time to mitigate a leaked secret is 36 hours, highlighting the operational burden of manual remediation processes, according to The 2024 State of Secrets Management Survey.
- 54% of organisations are dissatisfied with their current secrets management solution because not all secrets are secured, and 43% cite lack of central management.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can organisations tell whether secrets management is actually working?
A: Look for reduced secret sprawl, faster revocation, and fewer unmanaged copies outside the central system. A healthy programme can show where each secret lives, who owns it, and how quickly it is retired after use changes. If those answers are unclear, the control is cosmetic rather than operational.
👉 Read our full editorial: HashiCorp Vault vs Akeyless SaaS secrets management
