HashiCorp Vault Reviews

One of our primary use cases of HashiCorp Vault is security, to keep things secret. Instead of going for any particular cloud-based solution, this is cloud agnostic. We can go for any cloud solution when we have a hybrid solution in place, so Vault is always recommended for it. 

This solution is cloud-based. 

The most valuable feature of HashiCorp Vault is that it's an open source solution. Second, it's cloud agnostic, so it's very easy to maintain and control, which is why we prefer HashiCorp. 

I don't think there are any major improvements required—so far, so good. However, I think that having more training materials, such as videos, and documentation available would be helpful. I would prefer to have more videos available either on the official site or on YouTube. 

I have been using this solution for less than a year. 

This solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

There are less than 10 people in our organization using HashiCorp Vault. We have plans to increase our usage. 

I have never contacted HashiCorp support directly because, so far, I haven't had to. 

We have also used similar cloud-based solutions. AWS and Azure are promoting their own solutions, which we have used before. 

The installation was very straightforward. It didn't take more than one hour. We did it ourselves and the documents are very clear and helpful, so it was fine. For deployment and maintenance, we had a team of five engineers. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

I rate HashiCorp Vault a nine out of ten. 

The goal is to move towards open source, so it's always good to have a cloud agnostic-based solution. This is why our organization is always goes with a hybrid solution, which doesn't depend on any single cloud provider—it's always good to look for cloud agnostic solutions. In that view, I think that HashiCorp solutions are very, very acceptable. 

We use the solution to store and encrypt the passwords.

The solution's API feature works the best. It is user-friendly and easy to implement from any application point.

They should include automation features for the solution's implementation process. It will make the deployment simple.

I have been using the solution for two years.

It is a stable solution.

The solution's scalability is based on the infrastructure and depends on the volume of the usage of a specific organization.

The solution's initial setup process is complicated. It requires involvement from the security team. Additionally, it is not self-service and depends on manual intervention to carry out the implementation.

The solution's cost is reasonable. Its automation features contribute to sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it an eight out of ten.

Primarily, we use this solution for the secret management side of things. Initially, we were using Azure Key Vault, but we kind of shifted to HashiCorp Vault because we are using Terraform scripts, etc. We needed a common storage mechanism.

It's kind of technical, but when we were using Azure Key Vault, it was more driven towards applications. Our developers were exposed to those secrets and everything, but there were some things we didn't want our DevOps team to be exposed to. This is where the Hashi Key Vault helps. It can still be configured by a separate team other than developers. That's why I think it's more secure.

We could use more documentation, primarily to do with integrations. Anybody who uses HashiCorp integrates with a public cloud, like Azure or AWS. Azure and AWS have their own secret management; how does this collaboration work between the key vault of HashiCorp to the key vault of Azure? Some of this documentation is not up to mark.

I have been using this solution for slightly more than one year. 

This solution is both scalable and stable.

The technical support is pretty good.

Be careful about how you structure your Terraform scripts. You should probably start off with some examples already given by HashiCorp before you begin implementation. Once you've gone too deep, it's difficult to factor things in and out of it. Carefully read the documentation right from the get-go.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give HashiCorp Vault a rating of eight.

We use HashiCorp Vault to manage and keep all secrets and configurations in SQL. It works as central storage, securing different environments.

The product is complicated to install. It could be easier. Additionally, its pricing model needs improvement.

We have been using HashiCorp Vault for the last three years.

It is a stable product.

We have 10 HashiCorp Vault users in our organization.

The initial setup is complicated compared to AWS. We use Ansible for script automation. It takes one week and requires one senior DevOps engineer to execute the process.

We implemented the product in-house.

The product is expensive. However, we use the open-source version.

I rate HashiCorp Vault an eight out of ten. It is a good product to consider for companies who are looking to build on-premise or hybrid infrastructure.

We have a lot of use cases for HashiCorp Vault. We have centralized and integrated everything into HashiCorp Vault.

The most valuable feature of HashiCorp Vault is the management of tickets in the pipeline.

It would be helpful to have more advanced features.

I have been using HashiCorp Vault for approximately three years.

I have not had any issues with the solution, it is stable.

We have a lot of people using this solution in my organization.

The solution is scalable.

I have used other solutions and they can be more advanced. More automation for passwords would be helpful.

The setup of HashiCorp Vault is simple for me because I have done it before and I automate the process.

I rate HashiCorp Vault an eight out of ten.

The integration with other HashiCorp tools is very, very good. 

The solution is free to use.

The interface is very simple to navigate.

We found that Microsoft Azure Vault is better due to the fact that it has integration with all of the Azure services.

It would be better if it integrated more broadly with cloud API such as Amazon Web services, et cetera. 

The error handling could be a bit better. 

The technical support was hard to get a hold of and lacking in service.

The initial setup could be simplified. 

I have used the solution for two years. the last time I used the solution was at my old company and that was about a year or so ago. 

We didn't deal too much with technical support.

Largely, we would do any repairs by looking at the documentation on our phones. They never came to the office for technical support.

They could improve their services. For example, in the case of Microsoft, you can easily create a ticket and within an hour or two get a response. When you are working with the cloud, more frequent responses are important. With this solution, we didn't even know how to initiate asking for help. We'd try to create a ticket and found that getting help would take a very long time. That's why we ended up doing our own research. We'd look at videos and work at debugging manually. 

I wouldn't say that we were satisfied with the level of suppirt.

The initial setup is a bit complex. 

There are two ways to set up the solution. One was with the cloud in production, where we were using integration with the cloud. Cloud account. In that case, sometimes, it requires tracking errors, which comes while integrating the cloud. That was the main problem. We mostly do our manual recheck and look for any issues via diagnosis logs. The error handling could be better.

I wasn't involved in licensing, although it is my understanding that many of HashiCorp products are free of cost. There are premium services you could purchase, however, our organization only used the free versions. 

My previous organization was using this solution, whereas the current organization I work for is not. This is due to the fact that we work on multiple projects. We are a research team, and the delivery team does the implementation. We just propose solutions to clients based on their particular requirements. We tend to use many different solutions and tools at this company.

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.

We are currently conducting a PoC with HashiCorp vault to see if it meets our requirements. I have ten different use cases for the evaluation.

We are integrating it into our Key Management Service. In my previous company, we were using it to store all of our keys and secret certificates.

In my previous organization, all of the requirements and use cases worked well.

The most valuable feature is the hub cluster in Consul.

This solution is easy to use and to integrate.

The documentation is very general; it should have more examples and more use cases. Basically, they just tell you the syntax without a better explanation of how to do things.

We learned all of the Vault Commands (CLI) and they work fine, except when we are running on an EKS cluster then the syntax changes. Most of the commands are not working.

I have been using HashiCorp Vault for less than a year.

Vault, so far, has been stable for me. I have had some trouble with Terraform, which I find is not very stable.

It is easy to scale this solution. I spin up a cluster and on top of that, I install Vault. On the backend, I use Consul for my wallet.

Because I am using the open-source version, I have not contacted technical support.

We did not use another solution before beginning our PoC.

The initial setup is easy and it is not complex or difficult to configure. You just have to understand the basic concepts of authentication.

Downloading vault and installing it, including Consul, will only take 15 or 20 minutes. The configuration depends on the use cases and depending on them, the length of time it takes will vary. It should take no longer than a day.

I am using the open-source version of Vault and I would have to buy a license if I want to get support.

This is the first solution that we are evaluating. If the PoC does not go well then we will be looking into other solutions. We did not consider other options because we felt that Vault would do what we wanted.

One of the questions that I have been trying to solve is whether it is possible to update the cloud AWS keys from the on-premises solution. I have been through the documentation and the blogs and still do not know whether it is possible. Definitely, they can be managed once they have been deployed into the cloud, but I want to know the other way around. Our intention is ultimately to deploy on-premises, which is why this is important.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to fully go through the documentation and understand all of the use cases before implementing it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

This is a Secrets Management framework to manage a keystore, certificates, and passwords dynamically in a Platform as a Service context, such as Vanilla Kubernetes Platforms, Rancher, Meso, Tectonic, and Origin/OpenShift Enterprise Platforms.

Whatever the platform, this product can help provide good security and be PCI Compliant.

It is an added value for our customers to have a Secrets Management workflow available that is PaaS/CaaS/KaaS Platform agnostic.

Furthermore, for Private and Hybrid Clouds such as AWS and Azure, it helps us to address multiple use cases that are not covered by AWS KMS, Azure Key Vault, or even with Hardware Security Modules that are limited by key type and size.

The dynamic secrets and key revocation feature help us to mitigate some risks easier for our customers, starting at the beginning of their development, without service downtime.

Starting integration of this product at the CI/CD software factory level helps make it easier to expand the environment when needed.

A Service Mesh workflow connected within Vault workflow would be difficult to integrate, depending on the SI complexity and security compliance.

A drawback for some clients who have to be PCI compliant is that they still need to use and subscribe to an HSM (Hardware Security Module) solution. 

Compliance: www.pcicomplianceguide.org

Consul, the backend of Vault, is a distributed and highly available system and suitable for intensive production workloads.

The community edition is a place to start, where the development framework is already in place. When moving to production it is easy to make the switch and there are no additional development costs.

Once used in the framework, developers gain time to address authentication and authorization issues, which are managed once at the vault level and no more.

For PKI management, TLS certificate renewal or revocation "cert-manager workflow" can be useful but, at times,  not as compliant as expected.