Astrix Security · Oasis Security · Entro Security · Token Security Last revised: May 25, 2026
How You'll Hear This Before You See It
You will not get a meeting invite that says "NHI vendor evaluation." You will get one of these instead:
- A security team comment in a deal review: "We've already been looking at some tooling for our service account exposure."
- A procurement ticket for a "non-human identity security assessment" that routes through the CISO's office, not IT.
- A mention of a POC that ran over the last quarter — past tense — that nobody looped you into.
- A question from the IT director: "How does Okta handle service accounts that were never provisioned through the directory?"
That last one is the tell. When a buyer asks it that way — never provisioned through the directory — they have already heard a vendor demo that showed them exactly how many of those accounts exist in their environment. The pilot may already be over. The finding report may already be in front of the CISO.
These four vendors reach public sector accounts through security team evaluations, not IT procurement. The security team finds them through conference exposure, peer referrals, or a threat intel briefing about non-human identity as an attack vector. They run a free discovery scan. The scan produces a finding count. The finding count goes to leadership. By the time IT is involved, the vendor has a champion.
Recognize the entry pattern. Then decide whether you're getting ahead of it or catching up.
What These Tools Actually Do
Do not soften this section. These are genuine capabilities the buyer will have evaluated or will evaluate. Use this language because it is the language the buyer heard from the vendor's team.
Service account discovery. These tools crawl cloud environments — AWS, Azure, GCP, and connected SaaS APIs — to enumerate service accounts, API keys, and OAuth tokens that exist outside the managed identity directory. They find the accounts that were never provisioned through Okta or Active Directory. Astrix and Oasis both position this as their core differentiator; Entro and Token Security extend it into vault-connected secrets.
OAuth token sprawl visibility. They map which third-party applications have been granted OAuth access to agency systems, what permission scopes those grants carry, and whether the grants are still active or have been orphaned by departed contractors and decommissioned integrations. Oasis specifically positions its "service account lifecycle" framing around this — the idea that OAuth grants have a lifecycle that nobody is currently managing.
Secrets scanning. Entro and Astrix both offer detection of credentials, API keys, and tokens embedded in code repositories, CI/CD pipelines, and cloud configuration files — the secrets that live outside vaults and outside any identity governance tool's visibility. This is a distinct capability from secrets management; they are finding what exists, not managing what's been registered.
A buyer who has seen a demo will have a finding report with numbers in it. Do not walk into a discovery session implying Okta replicates this. You will be corrected, and you will lose the room.
FedRAMP Authorization Status
Verify all of the following at fedramp.gov/marketplace before any federal conversation. Do not use vendor marketing as a source.
| Vendor | FedRAMP Status (as of May 2026) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Astrix Security | Not authorized | No public statement on active pursuit |
| Oasis Security | Not authorized | Field reports suggest process initiated — verify before using |
| Entro Security | Not authorized | No public statement on active pursuit |
| Token Security | Not authorized | No public statement on active pursuit |
"In process" is not authorized. An agency deploying an unauthorized tool in a FedRAMP-governed environment accepts risk that must be documented and approved through their AO. That is not a blocker for every agency, but it is a compliance conversation the CISO's team will have to own.
The Repositioning Move
You cannot out-discover Astrix on service accounts today. The Okta argument runs on governance architecture and compliance overhead, not feature parity.
A standalone NHI tool in a FedRAMP environment creates three problems the buyer's compliance team will eventually own:
Integration overhead. The tool needs to connect to the agency's existing identity stack — Okta, Active Directory, PAM tooling — to do anything with what it discovers. That integration is custom work the agency's IT team builds and maintains. It is not the vendor's problem after the sale.
A new audit surface. The NHI tool itself must be FedRAMP authorized, or the agency documents and accepts the risk. If it is not authorized, the CISO has a new finding. In environments that are already managing multiple authorization boundaries, adding one more is not a neutral decision.
Split policy enforcement. NHI policy lives in one tool. Human identity policy lives in another. The audit trail is fragmented across both. When an auditor asks for a unified access review, the agency is pulling from two systems and reconciling manually.
Okta's platform approach puts NHI governance — service account lifecycle, policy enforcement, audit trail — inside the same authorization boundary and policy engine the agency already operates. That is the architecture argument. Make it there, and stay there.
Where Okta Stops Today
Be explicit with your buyer about this. An SE can support you here, but you need to know the boundary before you walk in.
- Okta does not perform automated discovery of unmanaged service accounts across cloud environments. It manages what has been brought into the directory. Accounts that were never enrolled are outside its visibility.
- Okta does not map OAuth token grants made outside its broker. It has visibility into what it brokered; direct grants your agency's developers made to third-party applications are not in scope.
- Okta does not scan code repositories or CI/CD pipelines for embedded secrets.
When a buyer surfaces these gaps — and a buyer who has seen an NHI vendor demo will surface them — the honest response is:
"You're right that Okta doesn't do discovery across unmanaged accounts the way these tools do. What we're asking you to weigh is whether you want that discovery capability inside your existing governance and compliance architecture, or as a separate tool that creates its own authorization and integration overhead. That's a real tradeoff and your compliance team should be in that conversation."
Then stop talking and let them respond.
Do not say "Okta covers non-human identities" to any buyer who has run an NHI vendor discovery scan. They will know you don't understand the problem.
Any buyer who has run an Astrix or Oasis discovery scan knows the distinction between managing registered accounts and discovering unregistered ones — because the scan showed them hundreds of accounts Okta doesn't know exist. Make this claim to a security-literate buyer who has seen that finding report, and you have just told them you don't understand the problem they're trying to solve. You will not recover the credibility in that meeting.
Say instead:
"Okta governs non-human identities that are under management. What these tools surface is everything that's outside management — and that's a real problem worth taking seriously."
One Thing to Say
When you need to redirect a capability comparison toward the platform governance argument, use this:
"The visibility these tools provide is real — the question is whether you want it inside your existing FedRAMP authorization boundary and policy engine, or as a separate audit surface your compliance team has to justify to the AO."
Say it once. Let it land. If the IT director or CISO picks up the compliance thread, you're in the right conversation. If they push back on Okta's discovery depth, acknowledge it directly and bring in your SE. Do not defend a gap. Redirect to the architecture decision.