Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Keycloak vs Vault: What are the differences?
Keycloak and Vault are both powerful tools used for authentication and authorization in software applications. Let's explore the key differences between the two.
Security Focus: Keycloak, developed by Red Hat, primarily focuses on providing secure access to applications through single sign-on (SSO) and identity management. On the other hand, Vault, developed by HashiCorp, is primarily focused on providing secure storage and retrieval of sensitive data such as secrets, passwords, and encryption keys.
Token-based Authentication: Keycloak uses JSON Web Tokens (JWT) as its primary authentication mechanism. It allows applications to verify and validate the tokens to grant access to protected resources. In contrast, Vault supports various authentication methods like token-based, username/password, and LDAP among others, making it more flexible for different authentication scenarios.
Secrets Management: One of the key features of Vault is its ability to manage secrets securely. It provides a centralized system for storing and accessing secrets, with support for automatic generation and revocation of secrets. While Keycloak does have some support for storing and managing client secrets, it is not as feature-rich or specialized in secrets management as Vault.
High Availability and Scalability: Keycloak supports clustering and can be set up in a highly available and scalable manner. It uses a distributed cache to improve performance and allow horizontal scaling. Vault also supports high availability and scalability but requires extra configuration and setup for clustering. It uses storage backends like Consul or integrated storage to enable clustering.
Ease of Use and Integration: Keycloak provides a user-friendly administration console and various integration options with popular identity providers like LDAP, Active Directory, and SAML. It also has built-in support for social login using providers like Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Vault, on the other hand, has a more command-line driven interface and may require some learning curve to get started. Integration with external systems may require additional plugins or custom development.
Extensibility and Customization: Keycloak offers a wide range of customization options, allowing developers to tailor the authentication and authorization processes to their specific needs. It supports custom user federation, role-based access control, and custom authentication flows. Vault, on the other hand, is more focused on providing a secure and reliable secret management solution and does not offer as many extensibility options as Keycloak.
In summary, Keycloak is primarily focused on authentication, single sign-on, and identity management with a strong emphasis on user-friendly features and wide integration options. Vault, on the other hand, is primarily focused on secure storage and management of secrets and has more advanced capabilities in that area.
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. 1. Keycloak 2. Okta 3. Auth0 Please advise which one to use.
It isn't clear if beside the AuthZ requirement you had others, but given the scenario you described my suggestion would for you to go with Keycloak. First of all because you have already an onpremise IdP and with Keycloak you could maintain that setup (if privacy is a concern). Another important point is configuration and customization: I would assume with Spring OAuth you might have had some custom logic around authentication, this can be easily reconfigured in Keycloak by leveraging SPI (https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/server_development/index.html#_auth_spi). Finally AuthZ as a functionality is well developed, based on standard protocols and extensible on Keycloak (https://www.keycloak.org/docs/latest/authorization_services/)
You can also use Keycloak as an Identity Broker, which enables you to handle authentication on many different identity providers of your customers. With this setup, you are able to perform authorization tasks centralized.
We have good experience using Keycloak for SSO with OIDC with our Spring Boot based applications. It's free, easy to install and configure, extensible - so I recommend it.
Pros of Keycloak
- It's a open source solution33
- Supports multiple identity provider24
- OpenID and SAML support17
- Easy customisation12
- JSON web token10
- Maintained by devs at Redhat6
Pros of Vault
- Secure17
- Variety of Secret Backends13
- Very easy to set up and use11
- Dynamic secret generation8
- AuditLog5
- Privilege Access Management3
- Leasing and Renewal3
- Easy to integrate with2
- Open Source2
- Consol integration2
- Handles secret sprawl2
- Variety of Auth Backends2
- Multicloud1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Keycloak
- Okta7
- Poor client side documentation6
- Lack of Code examples for client side5