CyberArk Privileged Access Manager Reviews

I've deployed Password Vault for various use cases across different industries from finance to healthcare and manufacturing. 

I love how easily we could operate within Password Vault and get things done. It was almost effortless. After we went through the implementation phase, it did what was promised, and we did not have to call support. It was a flawless install. All of us had experience as well because we got our certifications. We'd worked with it for at least a year.

There was a situation when one of our presidents had an issue, but I can't recall the specifics.

I've been using Password Vault for three years now.

For scalability, I'd give it a 13 on a scale of one to 10.

The installation was very smooth. 

At my previous company, my budget amount was $15,000, and we didn't spend all of that. It was a larger company than the one I'm with now. It was global. We didn't spend that or come anywhere near it. They're still adding on, and I know that CyberArk will be the solution that they're going to stick with. They were hybrid, and now they're all cloud.

I rate Password Vault 10 out of 10. If you're planning to implement Password Vault, my advice is to just let it work. Do all your use cases up front, and make sure you throw everything at them that you think will happen in your environment. Make sure that that's all addressed, so when you go to deployment, it's just easy. 

Our main use cases for CyberArk Privileged Access Manager are privileged access management and privileged session management. Another use case of the solution is password rotation.

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager improved our organization by identifying the owners of the service accounts. Each service account should be associated with an owner because without an owner, that account becomes an orphan account that nobody can take ownership of, so this means nobody would know what that account is doing. When we brought in CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, it helped us have a roadmap that allowed account ownership and account onboarding. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager gave us a roadmap, a plan to follow, and a guide on how to manage privileged access, and this is very important because we don't want privileged access to be compromised or breached.

Realizing the benefits of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager was a long journey. It was not an easy journey. It was a long journey to put things in place and get them onboarded because not all applications were compatible. It took six months to a year at least, to start the process properly.

The applications which were in Active Directory were easy, for example, it was easy to onboard the accounts and rotate the passwords because that meant only running scheduled tasks. There were a few accounts, however, where the applications weren't compatible with password rotation, particularly old applications or legacy applications that would break if the passwords were changed. To get all those sorted and to get all those in place, and explain what those changes were, took a lot of time, but for accounts that were just running scheduled tasks or services, those were onboarded easily and had their passwords rotated, particularly those which had identified owners.

One of the features I found valuable in CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is privileged session management. It's a feature that allows you to record the session, so if there's a risk, that risk can be highlighted.

I also found it valuable that CyberArk Privileged Access Manager can be integrated with PTA, and this means that it will tell you if there's a risk to the logins and signs of risk and if risky behavior is observed. It's a good feature.

Another good feature is the CPM because it helps you rotate the passwords automatically without involving the admins. It can go and update the scheduled tasks and the services. At the same time, if there's an application where it cannot do all of these, CPM will trigger an automatic email to the application owners, telling them that they should go ahead and change the password. This allows you to manage the account password that CyberArk cannot manage, which helps mitigate the risk of old passwords, where the password gets compromised, and also allows you to manage the security of the domain.

Integration is also a valuable feature of CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. It has an application access module function that allows you to integrate and manage applications, including BOT accounts. It also allows you to manage ServiceNow and many other applications.

What could be improved in CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the licensing model. It should be more flexible in terms of the users. Currently, it's based on the number of users, but many users only log in once in four months or once in five months. It would be great if the licensing model could be modified based on user needs. We even have users who have not logged in even once.

Another area for improvement in CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is the release of vulnerability patches because they don't release it for all versions. They would say: "Okay, you should upgrade it to this point. The patches are available", but sometimes it is not feasible to do an upgrade instantly for any environment, because it has to go through the change management process and also have other application dependencies. If that can be sorted out, that would be nice.

I've been using CyberArk Privileged Access Manager for around seven years now.

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is a stable solution.

CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is deployed on-premises in the company, so I'm unable to comment on scalability, but they do have a software as a service model, so that's scalable.

Technical support for CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is responsive. As for their timelines for completing tickets, it would depend on the process. Sometimes it takes them less time to respond, and sometimes it takes them longer. They have different levels of support, so if level one is not able to resolve it, they escalate the issue in due time to the next level of support. They're mostly able to help.

On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best, I'm giving their support an eight. There's always room for improvement, and in their case, in terms of support, what they could improve is their response time, especially their response to business-critical activities or issues.

The company was probably using LockBox before using CyberArk Privileged Access Manager, but I'm not sure about that.

Installing CyberArk Privileged Access Manager was easy. It's only the firewall you need to introduce into the environment that takes time, particularly if you're doing an on-premises model.

I saw a return on investment from using CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. It's a good privilege access management solution and identity and access management solution as a whole. It's a really good product.

The solution was definitely implemented because it saves you time and money, for example, access management and privileged access management are now automated when in the past, those processes were done manually. The new feature CyberArk DNA was also given free of charge, so that DNA tool can scan the environment for all the vulnerable accounts for password hash attacks, for accounts where the passwords were not changed. That definitely saves time, because that type of scanning would be very difficult for someone to do manually, and the report that comes out of that scan is very objective.

I'm not involved in the purchase of the CyberArk Privileged Access Manager licenses, so I'm unable to comment.

I was not part of the evaluation process.

I recently switched jobs, so I was working with CyberArk Privileged Access Manager in my previous organization, and also using it in my current organization. I'm using version 12.2 of the solution.

In terms of maintenance, it can be monitored through SCOM Monitoring, but the vault is standalone. CyberArk Privileged Access Manager can enable SNMP Traps so that the vault can be monitored automatically and it can trigger an incident to the ticketing tool the teams are using. It has the ability for automated monitoring.

My advice to others looking into implementing CyberArk Privileged Access Manager is to know their network properly. If they're doing an on-premises deployment, they should know their network properly, and they should first audit their environment in terms of the accounts they're going to manage on CyberArk Privileged Access Manager. They should also assign the owners and assign everything beforehand to help make implementation faster.

I'm rating CyberArk Privileged Access Manager nine out of ten.

We mainly use it to protect servers from inappropriate access and ransomware.

We started with on-prem solutions years ago. Our most recent implementations were done in data centers and the cloud. However, we are not in the cloud for CyberArk.

It is a really valuable tool. From the very beginning of my career in cybersecurity, I found that CyberArk is one of the best solutions that I could recommend to our customers. While it is usually seen as an access and identity management solution, it is a cybersecurity and cyber defense tool from my colleague's and my point of view.

It is a single tool that isolates possible kinds of malware. You get lateral movement blocking and auditing information, e.g., you know who is doing what. You are getting protections from the service as well as a useful environment. All your admins can easily go in and out of your company while accessing your servers in a secure way, even if they are working abroad.

One of the best points is that it gives you full control for all the use cases in your infrastructure, in terms of servers, applications, social networks, batch processes, etc. 

It gives you the ability to know what is happening, who is executing everything, and recover that information over time. Everything is recorded there. This is useful, not only for auditing proposes, but for admins and users. This also helps with troubleshooting. For instance, an application or system starts failing at 4:30 in the morning on a Sunday. Usually, the first questions that you ask yourself is, "What changed at 4:30? What has happened? Who was touching that server?" WIth CyberArk, you have the ability to search for that information and find it in minutes. It is really useful for troubleshooting.

The PPA from CyberArk provides a lot of information about access and allows for possible detection of fraudulent use or different tries of accessing, even for family Internet users. Thus, it gives you another source of information regarding risk.

We are using Secrets Manager with some of our customers. We are using it mainly for containers and DevOps. This secure access is really important, and becoming more important every day. We are constantly moving customers to the cloud. Every day, containers are more important for our customers as they extend into microservices, etc. 

The possibility to integrate with the DevOps cycle is vital right now. Sometimes, containers are deployed while some clients have them very protected. They have a lot of things with Panorama, Microsoft, etc. That is a risk because you are deploying things quickly, along with errors and other things that you are developing. So, having to use hard-coded passwords here would be a big mistake. 

Secrets Manager accelerates a lot of the possibilities and simplifies the process, since development teams just need to use credentials. When they arrive on a project, there are new people or resources in their development teams. Thanks to CyberArk, they just need to manage their identities to have access to everything. They don't need to receive credentials nor search for them. They have everything the day that they start working.

We find it easy to use CyberArk PAM to implement least privilege entitlements. We usually do some interviews at the very beginning with different teams to understand their real needs. We define saves and different AV groups for the kind of users that we are going to prepare. Then, the process to assign permissions to different groups is really easy and straightforward. If you want to change or reduce access, that can be easily changed at any moment.

I have been using it for more than 10 years.

In the last year, it has been a very stable platform.

Scalability is fantastic. It has been really easy to scale. In fact, most of our customers who start, or have doubts about how to start, we propose to them, "Well, if you are not sure or don't have the budget right now, you can start with a small deployment, then we will grow." It easily grows and you can add components. 

Other customers have started with a small CPD deployment, then replicated. We put high availability on another CPD. It is really good for public clouds.

We have some customer environments that are over 10,000 servers as well as some environments with more than 50,000 managed identities.

I would rate their technical support as eight out of 10. They are usually really good and quick about answering any questions that you raise. However, they are sometimes not flexible with things. For instance, from one day to another, there might be something that had been done years ago by CyberArk, then they say, "We do not support that." You then have to initiate a complaint and start working with them. Things might become complicated and months pass while you are working with them. Usually, they are good and fast, but sometimes they seem to be blocked with problems, e.g., you will suddenly be working with another team instead of the team that you were working with the day before.

Positive

I have been working with CyberArk and with the CyberArk teams for years. They have been able to adapt the solutions that they have developed or bought. They have grown a lot with the acquisition of different companies. They have been able to adapt them, make them valuable, and helpful.

The initial setup is straightforward because we have a lot of experience with it. While there are a lot of components, I don't find it difficult.

A deployment can typically be done in less than a week, but it does depend on the environment.

We have developed our own methodology for the implementation and deployment of CyberArk. We put the final users at the center of their strategy. One of the things that we have found that fails when deploying a PAM solution is that everyone focuses on the tool. CyberArk works and we know the tool is there, so we just focus on how the different groups are working with their servers, applications, etc. We focus on adapting the deployment in a way that does not disrupt their jobs. We try to be non-disruptive and not change the way users work.

We adapt the solution to already existing workflow processes, tools, accesses, etc. This is one of the best parts of CyberArk. It provides a lot of flexibility to adapt.

The main problem for the tool is its licensing. I work for a really big company. When you try to develop this as a service, usually you work with leverage teams who are formed with dozens of members. You might dedicate one FTE, or less, for something, e.g., an antivirus administrator. You might have half an FTE's effort dedicated to administering the antivirus, but then you have a team of about 30 users who might access that ticket. The problem is that CyberArk eliminated the possibility of concurrent users years ago. This is a big problem for companies who work with leverage teams.

You need to pay for everyone. 40 licenses are used by 20 or 30 people. This is a big problem because licenses are not precisely cheap.

It provides the broadest point of view for privileged access management solutions in the market. We have tested several other proposals and tools for our customers and ourselves. There is a huge difference with using CyberArk.

We evaluated CA PAM and another solution. The main difference is that they cover just a part of the solution. They promise the solution will be very simple to deploy because they only have a simple appliance. However, they are actually really difficult to deploy for an entire project as well as give you value. We have experienced a lot of support and integration problems. You need to do a lot of things by yourself. Whereas, in CyberArk, you have plenty of plugins and developed material in the marketplace. 

This is the big difference at the moment. When you are deploying, it seems like a very simple project, and the other solutions will tell you, "Well, it's just an appliance," and then it becomes a nightmare. Whereas, CyberArk does what it does. You need to deploy several servers, but it works.

From time to time, people in the market are like, "Wow, it was born as a cloud-native solution." Sometimes, this is real and means something, but usually it is mostly a marketing thing. Why would we ignore all a solution's previous experience just for something born in the cloud? Most of the IT solutions that we use in the cybersecurity market are not born in the cloud. For instance, if you go with Securonix or Sentinel, there is a huge difference in the way they were conceived and the way they were born. Just because something is cloud-native or new doesn't mean that it is good. I wouldn't go for something that is cloud-native, just because it is.

I would rate CyberArk as nine out of 10. I won't give the 10 because I have my problems with the licensing. However, the solution is completely recommendable and a must-have in every environment.

There are many possible use cases, but in general, CyberArk permits users to target machines and rotate their passwords, and to record decisions. It is used to create security through PTA and to forward Vault logs and investigate events. It also enables users to access passwords in dev code without actually knowing the passwords. There are a lot of advantages to CyberArk.

As a consultant, I have seen a lot of CyberArk configurations. Sometimes we use the CyberArk Cluster Vaults with one DR. I also worked for a company that used only one vault, without a cluster, but they switched data centers when there was an incident.

I used to be a Windows and Linux administrator before I used CyberArk. The difference is that now it is simple for me to connect to my target machines. I can add them to my favorites, making access to the servers simple. 

CyberArk enables confidentiality. The passwords are stored in a fully secured Vault. If you want, you can access target machines without using PVWA. If you act as a remote desktop manager, you can register your connections and connect your target machines through the virtual IP and easily connect to your machines. Your connections and commands would all be registered to the Vault.

All the features of CyberArk are useful for me, but the biggest one is that CyberArk has logs for all the features. That is important when there is a problem. You know where to look and you have the information. In cyber security, the most important aspect is information.

Another valuable feature is that if you don't have access to a machine, you can see the machine in CyberArk. It's the management capabilities that CyberArk enables for a company that are very useful.

Other useful features are optional, such as recording decisions or rotating passwords.

The PTA could be improved. Currently, companies often have multiple domains and sometimes it's difficult to implement CyberArk in this kind of infrastructure. For example, you can add CPM (Central Policy Manager) and PSM (Privileged Session Manager and PVWA (Password Vault Web Access) for access, but if you want to add PTA (Privileged Threat Analysis) to scan Vault logs, it is difficult because this component may be adding multiple domain environments. 

CyberArk, as a solution, can easily adapt to a lot of environments, and you can add a lot of components to different zones, and that will work with the Vault. But not all the components, such as the PTA, can do so.

Also, it would be helpful if CyberArk added some features for monitoring machines when we access them. For example, they need to improve the PVWA. In general, when we don't use the PVWA, we don't have a lot of problems. For me, the PVWA is not perfect. I would like to see more features in the PVWA to administer our machines and to improve the transfer of data.

I have been using CyberArk Privileged Access Manager for more than three years.

I have implemented and maintained CyberArk solutions for clients, including creating administration functionality, such as platforms and support for users, so that everybody has 24/7 access to the account. 

I have also been involved in enhancing the solution by installing useful components and testing them. I would help analyze if a component could be of interest to the client and then implement it in production.

In general, I would help maintain the solutions and make sure that everybody can access the accounts, and that password rotation works.

I would rate WALLIX support at six out of ten, while CyberArk's support is a seven. The reason it's a seven is that we always have to send them the logs. Of course, we do get some response and they work on things, but sometimes we lose time on little tickets.

Neutral

If you have some experience, it is not complex to implement CyberArk. For me, the preparation is more difficult than the installation. Because CyberArk uses binaries, if you add good information, it will work. But if you miss something at the preparation stage, like the opening of the flows that you need, of course, it will be difficult. I know how the solution works, so it's not difficult.

First, you have to install the Vaults, and after installing them you can add PVWA to access the information. After that, you can install the PSM and then the CPM for the rotation, and that's it.

The time it takes to implement depends on the environment. Sometimes we work with complex environments and we have to adapt and collect all the information that we will need. We need to look out how the machines should be set up for the installation. It really depends on the size of CyberArk you want to install, including how many computers will be onboarded to CyberArk. There are technical and functional variables.

CyberArk is one of the best PAM solutions and one of the most expensive, but it works better than the others, so the pricing is fair.

I used to work on WALLIX Bastion, but CyberArk works better than WALLIX. WALLIX is a PAM solution, a French version, but when I was at another job I was a consultant on both WALLIX and CyberArk at the same time. That's when I saw that CyberArk is better.

It is simpler to upgrade the CyberArk environment and components than WALLIX. CyberArk has a user interface but WALLIX does not because WALLIX is installed on Linux while CyberArk is installed on Windows, making it user-friendly. Connecting is also simple with CyberArk. When a user connects to the PVWA, there aren't a lot of buttons. When users see the icon, they click "Connect" and connect. It is simple for them.

CyberArk can adapt easily to environments. For example, when we talk about connectors, CyberArk can easily connect to all the target machines these days. CyberArk can onboard network machines, Windows Servers, Linux servers, and Oracle Databases.

Web application passwords can be rotated. With its PSM and Selenium features, it enables the connection of a web application to CyberArk and rotation of passwords, so that it's not system accounts all the time. We can manage the web application accounts as well. CyberArk can also connect to the cloud.

When you work on CyberArk, you have to have more than one skill set. You are not just a PAM consultant because you manage passwords for all kinds of systems. You have to have skills in Windows, Linux, databases, and security because you manage those kinds of accounts. If you don't have those kinds of prerequisites, you can't work with CyberArk.

I started working on CyberArk when it was version 10.x and at this moment it is at 12 and more. The interface has changed and a lot of features have been added over that time. It's a good solution.

CyberArk's Privileged Access Management solution covers a whole range of features, like privileged web access, private vault, privileged session manager rights for a session in isolation, privileged threat analytics for analytics, and private sessions. We also use CyberArk's Application Access Manager, which includes their credential providers, such as agents and run servers. Then there is a central credential provider, which is API-based credential retrieval, and DAP or Conjur. This is more of a DevOps model for credential provisioning. We also have the Central Policy Manager, which rotates the credentials associated with unprivileged or servers accounts. It's a huge environment. 

Those are all the different functions we use. We initially purchased CyberArk for privileged access manager and session isolation of privileged users. By privileged users, I mean main admins, global admins, and preps like Azure or Office 365. Our initial use case was to manage those users who could drastically impact the environment if their credentials were compromised.

After we purchased the product, we had a third party on it. They suggested we also leverage CyberArk as part of the platform for managing service accounts, i.e. go out and proactively rotate credentials that are running or ordering services. That's another kind of big use case that we started implementing a couple of years. It's long work. It is tough to do, there's a lot of cases where it just doesn't work right, but overall it's been pretty valuable.

From a security perspective, CyberArk PAM gives us a lot of control and visibility into what our privileged users are doing. In terms of securing our cloud-native apps, we're just getting into deploying things to Azure, AWS, etc., and DAP brings a lot of value to that because it is cloud-agnostic credential retrieval. Azure has their key vaults, and AWS has their version if you are a multi-cloud solution. CyberArk's Secrets Manager, or DAP, brings a lot of value because you only have to learn how to integrate your apps with one solution that can be deployed across multiple clouds. 

I will say that CyberArk is struggling with some of the cloud integrations. For instance, Azure has a native identity solution, and Microsoft keeps causing issues with their ability to identify the hosts calling back. Some cloud providers are trying to lock CyberArk and other tools out of their environment and force you to use their native one. With that said, I don't use the other functions. I don't use the containerization Kubernetes integration or anything like that. We're not at that point yet. One of my significant concerns about investing a lot of time in CyberArk Conjur or DAP solution is that Microsoft seems to be trying to push them out of that space, and if they do that, then all of that work is null and void.

In our initial use case, we found CyberArk's privileged session management functionality to be incredibly flexible. It's challenging to write these plug-ins, but if you have somebody with a development background, you can write all sorts of custom connections to support different functional applications. We've written over a hundred custom connectors ourselves that allow us to do all types of privileged session management for various applications. On top of that, the rest of the API-based central credential providers allow us to get away from credentials that may be hard-coded in the script or some application. 

CyberArk's web console isn't in a great state. Over the last three years, if not more, it has been transitioning from what they call the "classic UI" to its modern interface. However, there are a lot of features that you can only use in the classic interface. Hence, each version seems to put more makeup on the modern interface, but all of the complex functionality you need is still in the classic UI. 

I'm not sure they've figured out how to transition, and they're kind of in a weird state. So, while CyberArk has made strides, the web interface is painful, particularly as an administrator, because you have to bounce between these different user interfaces. It is an incredibly complex solution that requires at least a dedicated employee or more to maintain it, support it, and understand it thoroughly. If you don't have that, it's just not the right solution for you because it is very complicated. 

Many of the infrastructure folks who use the product dislike it because it complicates their workflow. They get a little less control, and they have to go through a specific solution. It proactively logs in for them, which obfuscates some of the issues that they may be troubleshooting. And I think some of the consumers aren't big fans of the product. Also, I feel that in the last year or so, CyberArk has been pushing very hard for customers to go to their cloud solution. It doesn't have the same flexibility as the on-premise version, which is problematic because that's where I see a lot of value in the solution.

I've been using CyberArk PAM for about four years now.

CyberArk support isn't the worst, but it's certainly not the best. I'd give it a six out of 10. They were responsive. After you submit a ticket, you get the typical response. You gather all the logs and send them, and then they do some analysis. They typically send you back to get more specific logs, so it's a standard support experience. I would not say it's great, but it is not terrible either.

Overall, as a partner in our digital transformation, CyberArk has been great. The technology adds a lot of value, but they're also very much engaged and concerned. The customer success manager very much wants to make sure we're getting value out of the tool. I guess my only concern there is that they are pushing very heavily for customers to switch to their new cloud solutions that may or may not fit our needs or expectations. I am worried that they're going to push even harder. For example, CyberArk might start offering features only available in the cloud solution that would make our future somewhat tenuous depending on what's going on. So my only hangup is that they're pushing cloud solutions that I don't think are very mature yet.

Neutral

The environment's architecture is very complex, depending on your use cases, and I'm talking about CyberArk as a whole. Their past solution — their AM solution — and all of the other solutions bundled together are straightforward, and it all needs to work together. Depending on your use case and the connected components you need to have or build, you must learn a lot. So, it's not as simple a thing to deploy — at least on-premise. It isn't straightforward. Our environment comprises 20 to 30 servers that we had to spin up and connect. Disaster recovery has to be thoroughly vetted, discussed, and documented because as you onboard and manage those privileged accounts, you need a way to get to them if something goes wrong.

It took about a month to get the product running and several months to onboard users. And when we start talking about Application Access Manager, that's ongoing, and I think that'll probably be ongoing for a very long time. We were targeting our specific use cases, so we started with interactive users. The whole idea was to restrict, manage, and monitor those interactive users. Our rollout proceeded from the most privileged users to the less privileged users. Then we started targeting service accounts and that kind of stuff. So it was a phased approach from highest risk to lowest risk to lower risk.

CyberArk PAM requires a lot of maintenance. Right now, we have about one and a half people, but I would say we need to add several more people to do a better job and add a lot of functionality. It requires a lot of maintenance and monitoring. They've relied on many different Microsoft features to secure the privileged session manager. It requires a lot of tuning, monitoring, and managing those solutions. They use AppLocker to restrict and isolate these running sessions, and AppLocker breaks all the time, so you have to go in and troubleshoot why it's broken and tweak it. That could mean adding a new rule or updating an application. It is a lot of maintenance, depending on your use case. But then again, we have gone very hard into privileged session management and developed over a hundred custom connectors. Another customer might deploy RDP and call it a day, drastically reducing maintenance.

If you ask me the ROI, I'm not sure I could give you an exact number. Security tools are pretty tricky when it comes to that. But if you're adopting a risk-based approach, this substantially reduces risk. It brought a lot of visibility and allowed us to monitor all of our privileged users, so it is valuable from the perspective of KPI, modern solutions, and risk reduction. If we were to score this on an internal risk review, our previous risk would rank four out of five, and we've lowered this to a low severity risk.

CyberArk had just changed switched their licensing model to perpetual licenses when we purchased, including the whole PAM Suite. Before we bought it, they were licensing each function individually, which got complicated and very expensive. When we decided to buy it, it was much more straightforward and still quite expensive, but it brings a lot of value and risk reduction to the organization. 

In the last year or so, it's my understanding that they have switched from a perpetual licensing model to pushing companies to a subscription-based model. I have not dealt with this yet, so I'm not sure my feedback on licensing would be too valuable because they've moved away from the license type we purchased.

This was our first foray into the PAM space. We did a proof of concept evaluating three different solutions, so CyberArk was the clear winner. I don't want to speak ill of any other solutions, but I will say that CyberArk's architecture was much more secure. Other competing solutions may leverage an agent that is installed on your local machine and runs your privileged applications locally, leaving a lot to be desired from a security perspective. 

CyberArk uses remote desktop gateways similar to Microsoft's RDS functionality, and it abstracts that privileged application from your workstation. So even if you're compromised, a malicious actor on your laptop or workstation would not be able to get to that privileged application. This was very valuable to us. Other solutions did not have that functionality.

As it stands today, I would rate CyberArk PAM nine out of 10. However, I'm concerned about the future of the platform. While I've had nothing but great experiences so far, I have concerns about how they've been pushing that cloud solution in the last year and a half. I feel like they're going to pressure us to move to the cloud even though they're not mature enough in the cloud. 

Rather than create a cloud-native version, they've migrated their on-premise solution to the cloud, but they don't allow cloud customers to access the backend, which I recommend all the time as an on-premise user. Instead, you have to submit a support ticket and have their support do things on your behalf, which delays your ability to work with the tool. Furthermore, they may not be willing to make the modifications you want because it would affect their ability to impact the solution consistently. CyberArk designed the on-premise version to be incredibly flexible, and I have never found a use case where I can't do the work I want to do. Their cloud model discards a lot of that flexibility, which is where I see a lot of value, so I have concerns about the future of the tool.

Also, I'd like to point out that service account management is incredibly hard, particularly in a company that's been around for a while. Any company looking to adopt service account management needs to know that it's not as easy as vendors make it sound. Many things don't work right out of the box, so the most important lesson we've learned is to calibrate the expectations of senior management when it comes to service account management because it is a lot harder than anybody thinks. You're likely to break things in the process of trying to manage these accounts. 

The main use case is the protection of privileged accounts. We also use it for multi-factor authentication and single sign-on.

Now we feel assured that all our privileged accounts are well protected. Our admins don't know passwords and don't enter them manually. This eliminates the risk of interception and account hijacking.

First of all, CyberArk offers great flexibility. Throughout our years of experience, we haven't found any system that we couldn't connect with CyberArk. We have many web management consoles, and it's no problem to connect to them using custom connectors.

Moreover, it's a highly customizable solution. If you know how to do it, you can customize it as you want.

There is room for improvement in the pricing model. From a technical point of view, there are no issues. Support could be faster, though. We have mentioned that better support from CyberArk would be beneficial.

So, support could be faster, and pricing can be improved.

We have been using it for our needs and sharing it for over ten years. Currently, we use version 12.

It is a very stable solution. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. If you can read the manual and avoid making mistakes, it's very stable.

It is an extremely scalable solution. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. In our organization, there are ten CyberArk users; they all are system administrators. 

The customer service and support could be better. The response time could be better. 

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a four out of ten, one being difficult and ten being easy. It's a modular system. To run CyberArk, you need to deploy several different services, set them up, and configure the interactions. It's not a solution in one box.

The initial setup is not very complex, but I would say it's not very simple, either.

We have deployed CyberArk in both environments. We have several working calls in the cloud and some parts on-premises. The initial deployment takes about two days. 

Our main technical task was to reduce security risks, which we accomplished with CyberArk.

I would rate CyberArk's pricing a nine out of ten, with one being cheap and ten being expensive. It's one of the most expensive solutions in the market, but it's worth it.

I would suggest finding a qualified partner. Don't try to install and configure it on your own. Instead, seek a certified CyberArk partner. It will save a lot of time and stress.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. It's very good, but there are still areas for improvement, like any other product. 

We have clients that ask us to implement CyberArk PAM. There are two kinds:

1. Greenfield installation and setup. 
2. They already have CyberArk and want to extend their usage to protect different types of accounts and passwords.

CyberArk PAM protects privileged accounts and passwords. Privileged account means that those accounts have particular authorization that can span all the features of the system. For example, usually on network devices, they come out out-of-the-box with administrator accounts. Windows has an administrator account built-in so you need to protect that. Also, Active Directory has some accounts, like domain administrators, who can do whatever on the platform. These accounts are used for administration.

CyberArk stores and rotates the password/credential. They can rotate SSH keys as well. This protects the attack surface. By way of CyberArk, you can allow sessions, isolation, and recording. The main aim is to protect privileged accounts and their credentials.

I started with version 9.7, and now I am working with version 10.10, but the latest version is 12.

The automatic change of the password and Privileged Session Manager (PSM) are the most valuable features. With Privileged Session Manager, you can control the password management in a centralized way. You can activate these features in a session; the session isolation and recording. You apply the full intermediation principle. So, you must pass through CyberArk PAM to get access to the target system. You don't need to know the password, and everything that you do is registered and auditable. In this case, no one gets to touch the password directly. Also, you can implement detection and response behavior in case of a breach.

With CyberArk, you have a centralized store. With Privileged Session Manager, you can just look by the browser, looking through the name of the account, the name of the system, and the host name. In this case, you get the password and can then get through. Therefore, it is easier to get access to the system because it is easier to search the system for what you want using the user interface/browser of CyberArk. You also have an auditable action because the password is unknown to the administrator.

Some aspects of the administration need improvement, though they have recently made improvements to the API. However, the management with the interface and configuration are not so user-friendly. It has not changed much during all the years that CyberArk has been on the market. The management part, like platform management as well as PSM connectors definition and management, could be improved, even if it has already been done with the API.

Onboarding is always a difficult path for every PAM solution. It is not immediate.

We have been using it for six years, usually in delivery projects.

The stability is very good. There are no problems with it.

It has good scalability. Though, because the architecture is modular, you must plan a bit. In terms of performance, it is very scalable, but you need to pay attention to the architecture because it is not like having Kubernetes that moves laterally. While you can deploy it in a second, you need to be careful. 

They have a good response time. 

Sometimes, on the development side, for some components, it does not respond for PSM connectors and CPM plugins. They don't tend to take responsibility for those. While clients tend to develop some PSM connector and CPM plugin, I would like a more flexible response on these types of issues being raised. Because while I am developing those components, I am developing on their product.

Positive

We had clients who had quite a lot of SAP systems, something like 900. At first, their change management practice, i.e., the changing of the administrators' passwords was not so frequent, e.g., once a year instead of once a month or every two months. Their password management was usually done by storing those passwords on an Excel. Therefore, if they needed to connect to a system, they had to access the Excel file to find the machine and accounts to then receive the passwords for access to the system. This was unwieldy since they needed to look through an Excel spreadsheet with more than 900 entries. This is also not very secure since you have an Excel file with a clear password on your workstation. 

It was a bit complex because the architecture is complex. At the same time, this is also an advantage in relation to other competitors in the market because CyberArk's architecture is inherently secure. So, while it is a bit more complex to set up initially, it is necessary for reaching the security that other solutions do not give you.

The installation can easily be done. It is the architecture part that is complex, possibly because you need to size the machines. 

It depends greatly on the project. Usually, the best approach is a modular one. You start with a set of users, then move on to expanding the solution with size in mind. 

CyberArk's architecture is peculiar. It is the most secure on the market because they have a hard-end computer out of the domain that stores passwords with multiple cryptography. Then, there are the default components that dialogue with Password Vaults. Only CyberArk has this. The other solutions usually give you an encrypted database on an appliance, and this is a very different scenario. Therefore, CyberArk has an inherently secure architecture.

Broadcom PAM is not as stable versus CyberArk. 

Plan wisely and you will have a very good product. The approach should be modular and step by step. Start with the UNIX administrators, network device administrator, Windows administrator, and Active Directory administrator, then move onto more complex scenarios, like web server administrators, sub-administrators, etc. 

I would rate CyberArk PAM as nine out of 10. It could be more manageable.

We have the identity provider for all the authentication processes. However, sometimes, we need access to different applications for customers or clients that are not integrated into the identity provider. For these, we need to store a password to gain access. For example, we use the CyberArk Password Vault for third-party services. This vault needs to be shared with many people in our company. 

This allows us to store passwords and create privileged access for some users without them needing to know the password. The system inputs the password into the endpoint URLs they use for authentication, but the users never see the password. This is crucial because people may leave the company, posing a high risk. If we had integrated it into the identity provider, we would have policies for active directory users but not for users outside the company.

For example, our development teams need to connect to databases, systems, and cloud services during development. The developers don’t get access to third-party services. We use the solution to manage this access. The application being developed and deployed integrates with CyberArk Password Vault services.

The main challenge was integrating with in-house IT and business applications, which are not standard. We needed to create special updates for that kind of integration.

I have been working with the product for three to four years. 

The solution is 99 percent scalable. 

Sometimes, support is not easy because you need to share the company's architecture. Maybe they are on time, but they don't understand the specifics we're talking about. Communication can be an issue, especially when speaking with people whose first language isn't English. There can be difficulties with understanding and making sense of conversations. So, outsourcing support can sometimes be challenging.

Neutral

CyberArk Enterprise Password Vault's deployment is complex. 

I have been working with the new services and don't see any additional issues at this hour. The key requirement is to have people who understand not only the tool but also the concepts and how to view it from an architectural perspective. 

One problem is that people may not know how to work with the tool, and another is that they don't understand the concepts. So, I think focusing on proof of concepts is good. For example, what I do at first is request information for identity providers and key management services.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.