Comparing Different Ways to Secure Disconnected Applications

There are five common ways organizations try to secure disconnected applications, the apps that can't connect to an identity provider through SAML, SCIM, or OIDC: do nothing and let users self-manage, use an enterprise password manager (EPM), build custom scripts or RPA, deploy an iPaaS integration platform, or use a purpose-built platform like Cerby. Each performs differently across the four areas that determine real security: credential management, authentication, identity lifecycle management, and logging and auditability. Password managers, scripts, and iPaaS each solve a piece, but leave gaps in automated rotation, deprovisioning, shared-account MFA, and audit coverage. Cerby is purpose-built to close all four across every disconnected app, extending your existing IAM, IGA, and PAM stack rather than replacing it.

This guide compares those five approaches across all four areas and shows where each one falls short.

The five approaches, compared:

• Do nothing (users self-manage): weak, reused, and shared passwords, MFA often disabled, former employees keep access, and no central visibility.
• Enterprise password managers (EPMs): secure storage and stronger passwords, but no automated rotation or deprovisioning, and shared-account MFA still breaks.
• Custom scripts or RPA: can automate some tasks, but brittle, they break when app UIs or APIs change, store API keys insecurely, and create tech debt when owners leave.
• iPaaS platforms: general-purpose API automation, not identity-focused, high complexity and maintenance, and no coverage for apps without APIs.
• Cerby: purpose-built for disconnected apps, automating credential rotation, provisioning and deprovisioning, MFA enforcement, and audit logging through APIs plus UI automation, even for apps with no API.

Download the comparison guide: Comparing Different Ways to Secure Disconnected Applications (PDF)