Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
15/08/2026 12:47 pm
TL;DR: Certificate lifecycle management buyers are weighing depth, cost, and consolidation as Venafi becomes CyberArk Certificate Manager and TLS lifespans move toward 47 days, according to Akeyless. The real decision is whether to keep a dedicated CLM stack or collapse certificates, secrets, and keys into one identity control plane.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Akeyless: Venafi alternatives analysis and certificate lifecycle trade-offs
By the numbers:
- As TLS lifespans fall toward 47 days, the deciding factor is automation and consolidation, not how many connectors a vendor ships.
- CyberArk completed its acquisition of Venafi in October 2024 for $1.54 billion, changing the ownership context for certificate buyers.
- Akeyless says Progress saved 70% of its maintenance and provisioning time after moving to a SaaS control plane.
Questions worth separating out
A: Start with lifecycle ownership, not feature count.
Q: Why do short certificate lifetimes change the governance model?
A: Shorter lifetimes reduce the time available for manual intervention and make renewal reliability the core control.
Q: What breaks when certificate ownership is split across many teams?
A: Visibility breaks first, then accountability, then renewal discipline.
Practitioner guidance
- Map certificate ownership across the full lifecycle Document who owns issuance, renewal, revocation, and offboarding for every certificate class, including app, container, SSH, and code-signing use cases.
- Measure renewal automation end to end Track how many certificates renew without manual intervention, how often endpoint replacement succeeds on first attempt, and where alerting fails to trigger before expiry.
- Review CA dependencies before choosing a migration path Separate teams that need a CA-agnostic management layer from teams that want private CA functionality inside the platform.
What's in the full article
Akeyless's full analysis covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Deployment and automation specifics for SaaS-delivered certificate lifecycle management across cloud and hybrid estates
- The comparison logic behind choosing a dedicated CLM stack versus a unified secrets-and-keys control plane
- Practical migration considerations for teams moving away from standalone certificate infrastructure
- How the platform handles private CA use cases, renewal workflows, and policy enforcement in practice
👉 Read Akeyless's analysis of Venafi alternatives and certificate lifecycle trade-offs →
Venafi alternatives: what do certificate teams actually need now?
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services →
15/08/2026 12:47 pm
Certificate lifecycle governance is becoming a machine identity problem, not a PKI-only problem. The article shows that teams are no longer choosing between certificate tools on feature count alone. They are choosing whether certificates remain in a silo or become part of the broader NHI governance model that also covers secrets, keys, and workload access. That shift matters because lifecycle failures usually emerge at the boundaries between ownership domains, not inside the certificate object itself. Practitioners should evaluate certificate tooling as part of machine identity governance, not as a standalone procurement category.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 91% of former employee tokens remain active after offboarding, leaving organisations vulnerable to potential security breaches, according to The 2025 State of NHIs and Secrets in Cybersecurity.
- 62% of all secrets are duplicated and stored in multiple locations, causing unnecessary redundancy and increasing the risk of accidental exposure, according to The 2025 State of NHIs and Secrets in Cybersecurity.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when a certificate platform becomes part of a larger identity suite?
A: The organisation remains accountable for lifecycle outcomes, even if the vendor shifts the product into a broader portfolio. Buyers need to reassess support expectations, roadmap priority, and renewal economics after acquisition events. Accountability does not move with the product; it stays with the programme owner.
👉 Read our full editorial: Venafi alternatives expose the trade-off between depth and consolidation
