Safeguard for Privileged Sessions

The purpose is to ensure that privileged users do not know their own passwords.

Our organization is more secure, and we are confident that the privileged users who are using the systems are actually the users they claim to be due to two-factor authentication because we are using two-factor authentication in One Identity Safeguard .

It is easy for us to revoke access as well. Previously, we did not know who had access to a system, but now, we can see what access is currently open to systems directly from one single pane of glass, allowing us to revoke that access if necessary. We have limited the possibilities for malicious actions and have made it safer for our users when they are using privileged accounts. They only have privileged access when using that account, but they do not know the password. While nothing is 100% secure, it is more difficult to misuse that privileged account. In the past, IT administrators could log in with domain administrator access on their normal PCs, which made everything work without needing to elevate their rights. Now they cannot do that because they no longer know the password. They are required to go through One Identity Safeguard  to elevate their rights.

In the beginning, we had some pushback from the administrators because they could not log in directly to a server or a system. They have to go through the web interface and log in. We had to educate them and put in a little bit of effort. We made them aware that we were also taking risks away from them so that nobody could misuse their credentials. People become administrators only when they want to use the system. When they are done using it, the account is disabled, and administrative privileges are revoked.

Previously, we had external consultants who had accounts, but we did not necessarily know when they were using the account. We now know because we have put up an approval flow. The external company needs to request access for a user, they need to call us and provide a ticket number. We then can approve it. We can also approve them for a specific duration, such as two hours. After that, the user needs to request access again and he needs to be approved. We now know when external people are using our systems. All the external privileged users are now disabled, which were not disabled before because we did not know when they needed to use the system. They did not have a normal user and a privileged account. They just had one user who could log in to the systems. Now, they need to have a normal user that can log in to One Identity Safeguard, and then the privileged account will only be enabled when we have approved the access to the system. The normal user does not have any access besides logging in to One Identity Safeguard. So, there was some pushback because administrators had to raise a ticket. We also tightened up our ticket system to ensure that IT does not do any work unless there is a ticket.

Our management can see that our security posture has greatly improved because, on a normal day, we do not have any privileged users who are enabled, so it is very difficult to elevate access to various systems. If they are not active, privileged access is revoked, and there is no access without a ticket.

We use the transparent mode feature for privileged sessions. It is very easy because it just goes through the Safeguard session. That session is used as a proxy now, so we can limit our end-user's access to server assets. Only the session has access to the servers, so we can do micro-segmentation in a different way now on our network.

The transparent mode is rather seamless because the user does not see this Safeguard session. They only see the Safeguard for privileged passwords because that is the interface that is there, a single pane of glass. When they request access to an IDP session or server, they see a different background because it goes through the process that does the recording but the users do not see that.

The transparent mode helps to monitor privileged accounts which we could not do before.

We have integrated it with test and development. They do not know the password either. Previously, they were the kings of their kingdom, whereas now, they are just users of their kingdom. They also now have to go through One Identity Safeguard.

If a privileged user does something malicious or suspicious, with session recordings, we can see what happened. We can see this person authenticated with two factors when he logged into One Identity Safeguard. If it was not something malicious, we can use this information to become better so that the issue will not happen again.

The implementation time was quick. It was basically up and running within a week.

I like the features that allow you to rotate your password, give you access to an RDP session without knowing your password, and record sessions. This is helpful for external people coming in, as we can review what they have been doing and use the recordings for training purposes. For example, if I want to upgrade a system that an external consultant did, these recordings can help identify issues. We can set different keywords to cut off a session if something malicious is detected. We can prevent a malicious action.

We use it to log in to various systems such as Linux and Windows, which is very convenient. There is also a personal vault for browser use, allowing us to save credentials for business-related websites securely. If a user leaves the company, I can assign that vault to another user. I can share credentials, save files within One Identity Safeguard, and ensure that certificates and license numbers are securely stored. I can see who has access to the files. I can save license numbers and license files in One Identity Safeguard, so I know where they are saved. I can also give access only to those who need it, as opposed to them residing on a file share or OneDrive, where access is not as transparent.

From a management point of view, it would be beneficial if One Identity Safeguard Privilege Password and One Identity Safeguard Privilege Session had a more similar interface. Also, if Privilege Session pushed more data to Safeguard Privilege Password, an admin would only need to log in to one place. They could then see the sessions and everything happening, even if it is running on a separate appliance. Why should I log into Safeguard for Privilege Session separately when it has been requested through the Privilege Password appliance? It would be advantageous if it was seen as one unified box, even though they are different. This is the improvement I would like to see.

I have used the solution for less than a year.

It is stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability.

It is very scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for scalability.

Our clients are medium to large enterprises.

Most clients use regular support, but some clients use premium support.

In previous work, I have used CyberArk and Secret Server. One Identity Safeguard is way cheaper, intuitive, and easier to use. Its implementation costs are much lower than CyberArk.

It is on par with Secret Server, but you do not have session recordings. You just have the privileged passwords and rotation features. You need to harden the Windows because it was installed on Windows, whereas One Identity Safeguard is already a hardened appliance. One Identity Safeguard is more secure than Secret Server. However, I used Secret Server a couple of years ago. It has probably matured now.

We are using the virtual appliance because we already have a virtual environment. The only on-prem setup we have are the physical servers that run a hypervisor. We like to have everything virtual. We can also secure a virtual appliance in a different way compared to the physical appliance. With a physical appliance, if something happens, we have to get hold of the vendor and sort out how fast they can ship a replacement, whereas we can deploy a virtual appliance instantly and get it up and running if there is a problem.

One Identity Safeguard Privilege Password is rather straightforward, rating it as an eight out of ten. Privilege Session is more like a six out of ten, being a bit more complex if I want to use all the features. However, if I just want to use it in Transparent mode, it is easier.

In total, it takes less than two weeks, depending on the landscape. Some preparation, like obtaining certificates and securing a backup share, is required first. I do require input from others to implement it within two weeks. If I can gather all the necessary data and access, the implementation becomes more straightforward.

The deployment was disruptive in a way for the privileged users because they now needed to log in through the web interface, whereas previously, they could log in directly. There are more or different steps. Instead of clicking directly on an asset they want to log in to, they need to log in to a different web page and request access. There are a few more mouse clicks than before, but we now have a better security posture of our environment.

To manage and do the implementation, you need to know certain things. You can also use a trusted partner for implementation. If you do not change anything in the system or do not want to do other connection types, you do not need that much training. You need to be aware of what you should look for. A three-day workshop with a partner would be sufficient. For end-users who need to use the system, a two-hour training would be enough.

We have two One Identity Safeguard specialists in our organization.

It is more expensive than Secret Server but way less expensive than CyberArk. As a customer, I would like the pricing to be lower, but it has a good price point.

There is no reason not to recommend it. Everyone should have a PAM solution to prevent privileged user damage and mitigate risks like stolen passwords or insecure storage. If you want to ensure recordings of activities, be it from external people or highly privileged users, then this is essential. This reduces the risk of malicious insiders. You cannot always prevent it, but having recordings allows you to pinpoint activities before a system failure. You can consider having SPA analytics for additional security. We do not have that yet because of the price, but we might add it later.

I would rate One Identity Safeguard a nine out of ten.

We are using it internally because I work in a consultancy company. I use it both for our internal privileged accounts. We have different systems like Google Cloud , some internal servers, data centers, etc. To secure those privileged accounts, like the administrator accounts and root accounts, I use One Identity Safeguard  to rotate passwords, authorize sessions, and more. The second use case is that we also implement One Identity Safeguard  for different customers.

The most significant benefit is that in the past, we saved passwords in Notepad files or Excel files. Now, we do not, and we have more security. We do not have saved passwords or plain text passwords in different places within the organization. That is probably the most significant benefit regarding security.

In terms of integrations, we have basic integrations for our Windows and Unix servers. We do the transparent connection for LDP and SSH, and that is all. The integration is simple overall for this kind of connection. However, if we want to integrate different consoles or different systems, it is a bit more complex because it is not so much out of the box, but for our current systems, it was very easy.

End-users require just a couple of training sessions and some documentation, and they are ready to go. They can start using the tool as an end user in a week or less. Managers or administrators require a technical specialist training workshop, which is a full-week course. After that, they need one to three months of training with laboratories and documentation. They would need at least three months to work well with the platform.

There is ease of implementation. Compared to other PAM solutions, it is easy to implement and use from an administrator's point of view. That is the most important benefit. It is very simple to implement and use.

We should be able to create customized connectors in a better way. For ad hoc or special use cases, I sometimes find we have limitations. Improving the way we develop new connectors for non-typical systems would be beneficial.

Another area for improvement could be the threat detection capabilities, like those seen in other PAM vendors. The ability to detect strange behaviors during a transparent connection or detect risky sessions and respond immediately would also be a good improvement.

We have had good feedback about One Identity Safeguard, but for LDP and SSH sessions, when we have to connect to a different console, such as a web console, the customers sometimes complain about the efficiency of the sessions. It takes extra time, and the user experience is not so good when you are using different connectors than normal ones.

I have been using it since 2020, so about five years now.

I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability. It is like a black box. It is an appliance. It is difficult for things to go wrong.

It is scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten for scalability. It is easy if you need to implement resources.

In our organization, we have 15-20 people working with this solution. Our clients are medium enterprises.

We use their partner support. It is usually okay. When I have day-to-day incidents and problems, the response is good enough in terms of time and quality. However, with complex problems, the response is not as fast.

I have experience with CyberArk. I would say CyberArk is a more complex solution in terms of implementation, day-to-day administration, and maintenance. It is more complex and difficult in some ways, but for advanced or difficult connectors, CyberArk has more capabilities to develop customized connectors. It can cover more special or ad hoc use cases, but at the price of more complexity overall.

One Identity Safeguard is at the top level because it covers almost all the general PAM use cases. It covers password rotation, transparent connections, threat detection, isolation, etc. It can cover the needs of most organizations. We have also been able to better cover more complex use cases with One Identity Safeguard than with other PAM solutions.

We have a virtual appliance. We chose the virtual appliance because we were already using a virtual machine infrastructure, so it was easy for us. Our implementation is not complex. We do not have a lot of regulations. It does not matter if we lose connectivity. It is not the end of the world, so for us, a virtual appliance was good enough. It was easier to implement. We do not need to rely on physical devices.

To implement and be functional, it takes days, probably one week, but when I go to a customer and need to do all the configuration and integrate systems, it can take a couple of months overall. It takes days to implement, but configuring and integrating everything can take some months.

In terms of maintenance, it requires less maintenance compared to other PAM solutions. There is not much maintenance regarding the infrastructure. They are, black boxes or appliances, but they do require maintenance in terms of day-to-day configuration, permissions, and connectors.

We did not cover many use cases regarding efficiency and cost reduction, so we did not see ROI directly. However, being more secure makes it less probable that we will suffer an attack or data loss, which is a cost reduction, but I did not see much time reduction. There is about 10% savings.

It is cheaper than CyberArk. Its price is fair.

We use the solution’s transparent mode feature for privileged sessions. There was an impact on the users with the roll-out of this feature because we changed the way people were connecting to systems and faced some problems like communication and networking problems. People did not have the correct permissions at the time. That was a bit of a problem, but we now have a seamless integration. It took us a couple of months to have everything working.

I will recommend it to some customers because it is easy to deploy, administer, and configure. The price is fair. The scalability is also good.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. It covers pretty much all use cases, but sometimes there is a lack of customization.

We use it to handle secure access to our Windows and Linux servers and also to manage some of our user accounts. This includes password rotation, JIT, and disabling accounts when they are not in use.

We use their physical appliance.

I look after the backend, but I am also a user of it. In general, users do not love it because there are extra steps to what they are used to, but it is an intuitive service. The approval workflows work particularly well with their integration into Teams. From a backend point of view, it is not too bad. There are a few places where the interface could be slightly different, but mostly, it is fairly intuitive.

The Approval Anywhere feature provides an approval process. We use it for our external contractors. It is nice and easy once things are set up from their point of view, and it provides the university with an additional layer or multiple layers of security, which we did not have before.

We have integrated it with Identity Manager, which is another One Identity product. We have not integrated it with anything else. We thought about integrating it with ServiceNow  to have a one-stop shop from ServiceNow  to make API calls and requests from there. However, we wanted to keep things a bit simpler at this point. The interface is pretty nice. Asking users to go via the Safeguard method works well.

It provides secure and centralized access to both on-prem and cloud servers, which we did not have before. Previously, there were myriad ways to access our servers, so this centralizing feature is beneficial.

The auditing and approval mechanisms are features we did not have before and are greatly appreciated.

I do not have any integrations at the moment, and I also do not use the API to automate this. I have to set up user accounts, then privilege accounts, and then linked accounts, and do some association there. There are many steps. We are still in the onboarding phase, and it seems very manual. Ideally, a single interface to integrate all these processes would be useful.

A couple of missing features that I have seen are about to come out, and I am happy they are addressing customer feedback with exactly what I wanted.

I have used the solution for probably about 18 months to 2 years.

We have not had any issues with the core product itself, but there is an add-on called SCALUS, which is quite critical to the user experience, and that does not work. They have been having issues with that for quite a long time, like months. That is not great at all.

Scalability is fine. We have a cluster of SPPs and a cluster of SPSs, and we can add a node to that cluster without much fuss. We did it on one of the clusters, so it is all good.

They are quick to acknowledge a call or case, possibly due to SLA requirements. Overall, it is a hit-and-miss. Sometimes, I get a very helpful response and they address issues on a call. Other times, I am politely informed they cannot help.

I did not use any similar solution previously.

It was a little bit of stop-and-start. Quite a few people were involved, but we had One Identity's professional service's help as well. We had something working within a week.

It does require maintenance. It is not a SaaS service. It is not a hosted service, so I have to resolve any issues that come along. I have to deal with any feature enhancements and patching.

We had One Identity's professional service. We had probably four people from our side.

We bought their other products, so it was not that expensive. It is one of those where the more you buy, the cheaper it is.

I would rate One Identity Safeguard  an eight out of ten.

My main use cases include LDAP, SSH, and some utilization of HTTPS. My primary uses are LDAP and SSH.

From my experience, the features are best for monitoring and the usage of LDAP and SSH. I think One Identity should improve its documentation because it is vast and not clear, and clear documentation on implementing the solution would be advantageous for consultants. I find clear documentation helpful for clients and customers to achieve what they want.

I find it complicated to implement HTTPS monitoring because the documentation is unclear. The disaster recovery process is complicated for me. For some configurations on the SPS side, if I need to make changes, such as for DNS servers, I must redeploy the machine. Transparent Mode can be improved in newer versions, and the failover process is the most complicated for me.

I have been working with this solution for the last two years.

The stability is consistent for me until a problem arises; then it becomes difficult. I encounter problems primarily with the failover procedure.

Scalability is acceptable for me. If customer usage increases, I can add new appliances, but this incurs costs.

I find the support good, but not excellent. When I open a ticket, resolutions can take a long time, and I sometimes need escalations to reach expertise.

I always compare this solution with CyberArk. I feel CyberArk is not like a black box; it allows a lot of customization.

The initial setup is not complex for me; it's straightforward. I would rate it a seven, as it takes me thirty to forty minutes per machine for deployment.

I install the solution and offer the services to the end-users.

Any PAM solution, when I deploy it well and customers use it, leads to a return on investment. This is applicable not just to One Identity or CyberArk, but to any PAM solution that provides what customers need to achieve.

It's about controlling what people are doing in their infrastructure. Overall, I would rate the product six out of ten.