Oathkeeper vs Teleport: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this markdown code, we will discuss the key differences between Oathkeeper and Teleport, two popular tools used for secure access to networks and services. Below are the key differences between the two:

1. Integration with Identity Providers: Oathkeeper provides seamless integration with various identity providers like OAuth2, OpenID Connect, and more, allowing users to authenticate and authorize access to services effortlessly. On the other hand, Teleport uses its own identity provider, Teleport Auth, which is an SSH certificate authority, providing secure authentication and authorization specifically for SSH access.

2. Support for Multiple Protocols: Oathkeeper supports a wide range of protocols including HTTP, REST, GraphQL, and gRPC, making it versatile for different types of services and APIs. In contrast, Teleport primarily focuses on providing secure SSH access, making it an ideal choice for managing and auditing SSH sessions.

3. Centralized Policy Management: Oathkeeper offers a centralized policy management system, allowing the administrators to define and enforce fine-grained access control policies across different services. This allows for easy governance and management of access control rules. Teleport, on the other hand, does not provide a centralized policy management system, requiring administrators to manage access control configurations separately for each SSH node.

4. Scalability and High Availability: Oathkeeper is designed to be highly scalable and supports horizontal scaling, allowing it to handle high volumes of traffic effectively. It also supports clustering for high availability scenarios. In contrast, Teleport's architecture is focused on providing secure access to SSH nodes within a cluster and does not have built-in horizontal scaling capabilities or high availability features.

5. Web-based User Interface: Teleport provides a web-based user interface that allows administrators to manage user roles, configuration, and audit logs through a graphical interface. Oathkeeper does not offer a built-in web-based user interface but can be integrated with other identity management systems that provide such functionality.

6. Ease of Deployment and Maintenance: Oathkeeper can be easily deployed as a containerized application using Docker, which simplifies the deployment and maintenance process. Additionally, it supports various deployment models such as on-premises, cloud, and hybrid environments. Teleport, on the other hand, requires manual installation and configuration on each SSH node, which can be more complex and time-consuming to set up and maintain.

In summary, Oathkeeper and Teleport differ in terms of their integration capabilities, protocol support, policy management, scalability, user interface, and deployment options. Oathkeeper focuses on providing a wide range of integrations, multiple protocol support, and centralized policy management, while Teleport specializes in secure SSH access management with its own identity provider and a web-based user interface.