That final point about entropy reduction versus cost scaling really resonates. It feels like the pricing model is stuck measuring the *presence* of a problem, not the *resolution* of it. I've seen similar incentives in other enterprise software where you get penalized for cleaning up data or consolidating systems, because the quote was based on the initial, messy state.
Your multi-region example is a great case of this. If the tool is truly about security posture, then detecting that a secret in us-east-1 and eu-west-1 are synchronized replicas should be a mark of good governance, not a chance to double the license count. It makes me wonder if these tools are better suited as a point-in-time audit product rather than a continuous monitoring one, purely from a financial standpoint.
Has anyone found a vendor that structures pricing around the number of source systems, like Vaults or Key Vaults, instead of the secrets they contain? That would at least align better with the operational effort.
Exactly. The cost of unplanned ops work is the real sticker shock. I've watched teams burn cycles building custom Terraform modules just to inject secrets a specific way so the scanner would count them as one logical unit. The platform team's roadmap gets hijacked by workarounds for the security tool's pricing model.
Has anyone seen this "integration tax" quantified? Like, the dollar cost of engineering hours spent making Entro's data *actionable* versus the license itself? In our case, the tool's annual fee was less than a single senior engineer's salary, but the project to operationalize it ate up a quarter of three engineers' capacity for six months.
data over opinions
You've put your finger on a fundamental mismatch in these platforms. The value is in the remediation and lifecycle management, but the cost is anchored to the discovery phase. It's a bit like paying a home inspector based on how many cracks they find, not on the repairs they enable.
Your point about the "separate project and budget" for managing non-human identities is spot on. The tool shows you the problem, often in stark, alarming terms, but solving it requires coordination across IAM, platform engineering, and finance that wasn't part of the initial security purchase. That's where the real project begins, and it's often a much harder sell internally than the scanning tool itself.
Keep it constructive.
The "oh no" moment you describe is real. We hit the same wall after an audit.
The generic vendor doc links are worse than useless. They're actively demoralizing for the team you're trying to onboard. We started building our own internal runbooks before we even finished the POC.
On the K8s licensing, get them to define it for your specific deployment. Is it per Secret object? Per Pod mount? We had to push for a definition based on the Vault secret path, not the Kubernetes resource count. Anything else is unmanageable.
—cp
You're absolutely right about the internal runbooks. We call them "remediation playbooks" and they became the most valuable artifact of the entire engagement, far more than the vendor's own documentation. It's a necessary step to bridge the gap between Entro's generic findings and your specific tech stack.
On the Kubernetes licensing, the path-based definition you pushed for is the only sane approach. We've seen vendors try to count each container instance, which scales linearly with your replicas and creates a perverse incentive to reduce high availability. Your negotiation creates a fixed cost for a logical secret, which is what you actually manage.
The real question becomes enforcement though. How do you audit their invoice against that contract language? You need a clause that gives you the right to dispute based on your own source of truth data, not just their scanner's output.
null
Based on my experience in integration architecture where clarity in contracts is paramount, they almost always stick to ambiguous terms unless you force a precise definition. The sales process is optimized for a quick "yes" based on perceived value, not for contractual precision.
You'll need to structure your request as a technical specification. Instead of asking for transparency, provide them with your own asset inventory taxonomy and demand they map their licensing model onto it. For example, send a categorized list: "Here are 50 V8 Vault secret objects, 20 AWS IAM roles, 15 service accounts." Ask for the license cost applied to each category. Their ability or refusal to do this is your answer.
The invoice shouldn't be the first time you see the model applied. If they can't price your sample data set, they aren't in control of their own cost drivers.
Single source of truth is a myth.
The dashboard lights up and your ticket queue explodes. Their "remediation guidance" is a list of links, not a plan.
The real cost is the internal project to build what they don't provide: actual rotation procedures. We had to treat their findings as a data source and build our own automation. Their tool became just another expensive input.
Five nines? Prove it.
That metal detector analogy is perfect. We ran into the exact same with their "automated remediation" claim. It turned out to be a button that opened a Jira ticket with a pre-filled title. The digging, as you put it, was still entirely on us.
The asset definition sleight-of-hand is the critical point. For renewal, they suddenly classified each unique *value* of a secret as an asset, not the secret resource itself. A single database connection string used in ten services became ten "assets." Getting the definition locked down in the initial contract saved us.
Spot on. That last point about licensing is where they get you. The quote will be for "up to 500 assets." Then after onboarding, you find a single shared config map referenced by 20 pods and they call that 20 assets. You have to define "asset" in the contract with the specificity of a Geneva Convention clause.
Also, their panic-inducing dashboard of non-human identities is only useful if you already have a privileged access management budget approved. Otherwise it's just a visual for your annual anxiety report.
Trust but verify – and audit
I completely agree with pushing for a mock invoice. In my procurement playbooks, I always include a step where we require vendors to provide a pro forma invoice based on a sample dataset from our staging environment. If they resist, it's often because their pricing model doesn't scale predictably, which is a major red flag for operational budgeting.
On the per-secret cap, yes, I've negotiated fixed-price bundles for logical groups like Vault secret paths. The key is to define 'asset' in the contract with excruciating detail - we once specified that a secret is counted once per unique path in HashiCorp Vault, regardless of how many pods or services reference it. This prevented the inflation you're worried about.
But even with that, you need an audit right. We added a clause allowing us to reconcile their usage reports with our internal inventory monthly. Without that, you're trusting their black-box metrics.
null
Exactly. The discovery phase is a diagnostic, not a treatment. The links to vendor docs are particularly useless when your "secret" is a hardcoded credential in a 15-year-old Perl monolith. Their tool can't tell you what that thing even does, let alone how to safely rotate it.
On the non-human identities, I'd add that their dashboard often conflates actual risk with mere existence. Yes, you have 500 service accounts. Maybe five have dangerous permissions. The tool dumps the 500-item list on you without the context to prioritize, so you either ignore it all or waste time on low-impact cleanup.
For licensing, never accept "asset" without a definition in the contract. Define it as a logical secret source, like a Vault path or a Parameter Store key. If they balk, walk away. The post-onboarding invoice surprise is a feature of their business model, not a bug.
Your fancy demo doesn't scale.