IBM Secure Gateway vs Keycloak

Overview

Keycloak

Stacks780

Followers1.3K

Votes102

IBM Secure Gateway

Stacks5

Followers5

Votes0

IBM Secure Gateway vs Keycloak: What are the differences?

Introduction

IBM Secure Gateway and Keycloak are two different tools used in website development. While IBM Secure Gateway is primarily used for securing connections between on-premise and cloud applications, Keycloak is an open-source identity and access management solution. Despite having some similar functionalities, there are several key differences between IBM Secure Gateway and Keycloak that set them apart.

Architecture and Purpose: IBM Secure Gateway is designed to securely connect on-premise applications with cloud-based services. It acts as a bridge between the two environments, ensuring secure data transfer. On the other hand, Keycloak focuses on providing authentication and authorization services, managing user identities and access rights within an application or system.
Vendor and Licensing: IBM Secure Gateway is a product of IBM, a renowned technology company, and is available as a paid service. It offers enterprise-level support and is subject to IBM's licensing terms. Keycloak, on the other hand, is an open-source solution developed by Red Hat. It is released under the Apache License 2.0, which allows users to modify and distribute the software freely.
Integration Capabilities: IBM Secure Gateway is specifically designed to integrate with IBM Cloud, providing seamless connectivity and secure interactions with various cloud services offered by IBM. In contrast, Keycloak is integrable with a wide range of platforms and technologies, making it a versatile option for different development environments.
Identity and Access Management Features: Keycloak offers comprehensive identity and access management features, including single sign-on, social login, and user federation. It enables centralized user management and allows developers to set fine-grained access control policies. IBM Secure Gateway, however, focuses on secure data transfer rather than providing extensive identity management capabilities.
Ease of Use: Keycloak has a user-friendly administration console that simplifies the management of users, roles, and permissions. It offers a customizable user interface and supports various authentication mechanisms. IBM Secure Gateway, although relatively simpler to set up and configure, lacks some of the user-friendly features provided by Keycloak.
Scalability and Performance: IBM Secure Gateway is optimized for high-performance data transfer between on-premise and cloud environments. It ensures efficient and secure communication even in complex network setups. Keycloak, being a lightweight solution, can also handle high user loads with scalable deployment options, which makes it suitable for large-scale applications.

In Summary, IBM Secure Gateway focuses on secure connectivity between on-premise and cloud applications, while Keycloak is an open-source identity and access management solution with extensive authentication and authorization features. IBM Secure Gateway is vendor-specific and offers seamless integration with IBM Cloud, whereas Keycloak is platform-agnostic and supports various technologies. Keycloak provides a user-friendly administration console and comprehensive identity management capabilities, while IBM Secure Gateway prioritizes high-performance data transfer and secure communication.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Keycloak, IBM Secure Gateway

sindhujasrivastava

Jan 16, 2020

Needs advice

I am working on building a platform in my company that will provide a single sign on to all of the internal products to the customer. To do that we need to build an Authorisation server to comply with the OIDC protocol. Earlier we had built the Auth server using the Spring Security OAuth project but since in Spring Security 5.x it is no longer supported we are planning to get over with it as well. Below are the 2 options that I was considering to replace the Spring Auth Server.

Keycloak
Okta
Auth0 Please advise which one to use.

258k views258k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Keycloak	IBM Secure Gateway
It is an Open Source Identity and Access Management For Modern Applications and Services. It adds authentication to applications and secure services with minimum fuss. No need to deal with storing users or authenticating users. It's all available out of the box.	It provides a quick, easy, and secure solution to connect anything to anything. The solution provides a persistent connection between on-premises or third-party cloud environments and the IBM Cloud®.
-	Quickly set up gateways to connect your environments, manage the mapping between your local and remote destinations, and monitor all of your traffic; All communication with Secure Gateway is easily configurable to provide TLS encryption and mutual authentication; Resource monitoring; Access control list; Load balancing and high availability
Statistics
Stacks 780	Stacks 5
Followers 1.3K	Followers 5
Votes 102	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 33 It's a open source solution 24 Supports multiple identity provider 17 OpenID and SAML support 12 Easy customisation 10 JSON web token Cons 7 Okta 6 Poor client side documentation 5 Lack of Code examples for client side	No community feedback yet

What are some alternatives to Keycloak, IBM Secure Gateway?

Auth0

A set of unified APIs and tools that instantly enables Single Sign On and user management to all your applications.

Stormpath

Stormpath is an authentication and user management service that helps development teams quickly and securely build web and mobile applications and services.

Devise

Devise is a flexible authentication solution for Rails based on Warden

Firebase Authentication

It provides backend services, easy-to-use SDKs, and ready-made UI libraries to authenticate users to your app. It supports authentication using passwords, phone numbers, popular federated identity providers like Google,

Amazon Cognito

You can create unique identities for your users through a number of public login providers (Amazon, Facebook, and Google) and also support unauthenticated guests. You can save app data locally on users’ devices allowing your applications to work even when the devices are offline.

WorkOS

Start selling to enterprise customers with just a few lines of code.

OAuth.io

OAuth is a protocol that aimed to provide a single secure recipe to manage authorizations. It is now used by almost every web application. However, 30+ different implementations coexist. OAuth.io fixes this massive problem by acting as a universal adapter, thanks to a robust API. With OAuth.io integrating OAuth takes minutes instead of hours or days.

OmniAuth

OmniAuth is a Ruby authentication framework aimed to abstract away the difficulties of working with various types of authentication providers. It is meant to be hooked up to just about any system, from social networks to enterprise systems to simple username and password authentication.

ORY Hydra

It is a self-managed server that secures access to your applications and APIs with OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect. It is OpenID Connect Certified and optimized for latency, high throughput, and low resource consumption.

Kinde

Simple, powerful authentication that you can integrate in minutes. Free your users from passwords with secure and frictionless one click sign up and sign in. Built from the ground up using the best in class security protocols available today.

Related Comparisons

IBM Secure Gateway vs Keycloak: What are the differences?

Introduction

Architecture and Purpose: IBM Secure Gateway is designed to securely connect on-premise applications with cloud-based services. It acts as a bridge between the two environments, ensuring secure data transfer. On the other hand, Keycloak focuses on providing authentication and authorization services, managing user identities and access rights within an application or system.
Vendor and Licensing: IBM Secure Gateway is a product of IBM, a renowned technology company, and is available as a paid service. It offers enterprise-level support and is subject to IBM's licensing terms. Keycloak, on the other hand, is an open-source solution developed by Red Hat. It is released under the Apache License 2.0, which allows users to modify and distribute the software freely.
Integration Capabilities: IBM Secure Gateway is specifically designed to integrate with IBM Cloud, providing seamless connectivity and secure interactions with various cloud services offered by IBM. In contrast, Keycloak is integrable with a wide range of platforms and technologies, making it a versatile option for different development environments.
Identity and Access Management Features: Keycloak offers comprehensive identity and access management features, including single sign-on, social login, and user federation. It enables centralized user management and allows developers to set fine-grained access control policies. IBM Secure Gateway, however, focuses on secure data transfer rather than providing extensive identity management capabilities.
Ease of Use: Keycloak has a user-friendly administration console that simplifies the management of users, roles, and permissions. It offers a customizable user interface and supports various authentication mechanisms. IBM Secure Gateway, although relatively simpler to set up and configure, lacks some of the user-friendly features provided by Keycloak.
Scalability and Performance: IBM Secure Gateway is optimized for high-performance data transfer between on-premise and cloud environments. It ensures efficient and secure communication even in complex network setups. Keycloak, being a lightweight solution, can also handle high user loads with scalable deployment options, which makes it suitable for large-scale applications.

IBM Secure Gateway vs Keycloak

Overview

IBM Secure Gateway vs Keycloak: What are the differences?