Compare · PAM
Skipr and privileged access management
Privileged access management exists because a small number of powerful accounts required extra control. Autonomous execution inverts the assumption: the number of principals capable of consequential action is large, and most of them are not people.
What PAM does well
- Vaulting, rotating and brokering privileged credentials
- Session recording and just-in-time elevation for administrators
- Breaking glass procedures with review
- Reducing standing administrative privilege
Where it stops
- Scoped to privileged human sessions on managed targets
- Application, workload and agent paths often bypass the broker
- Elevation is per session rather than per action
- Recording is evidence of activity, not proof of authorization scope
What changes with autonomous execution
- Agents perform privileged operations continuously through APIs, not consoles
- The privileged surface now includes data queries and tool invocations
- Zero standing access has to apply to non-human principals too
How Skipr complements it
- PAM keeps the credential problem; Skipr governs the action
- Zero standing privilege extends to agents, workloads and applications
- Grants carry explicit scope and time-to-live, issued at decision time
- Evidence is produced at the enforcement point rather than from session capture
Side by side
| Dimension | PAM | Skipr |
|---|---|---|
| Population governed | Privileged administrators | All principals, human and non-human |
| Unit of control | Session | Action |
| Typical path | Broker and console | In-path across APIs, tools and data |
| Standing privilege | Reduced for admins | Zero standing by default across principals |
Questions
- Can PAM and Skipr coexist?
- Yes, and they usually should. PAM remains appropriate for interactive administrative access; Skipr governs programmatic and autonomous action.
- Does Skipr vault credentials?
- It is not a credential vault. It decides whether an action executes and binds the granted scope to it.
- What about session recording for auditors?
- Recording remains useful. Skipr's evidence answers a different question: what was authorized, under which policy, and what actually ran.
Continue
Other comparisons
- AI governance and runtime governanceAI governance decides and documents what should be allowed. Runtime governance enforces it in the path of the action and proves the outcome. Both are needed.
- Skipr and identity and access managementIAM establishes who a principal is and what they may reach. Skipr decides whether a specific action may execute right now, and proves it.
- Skipr and zero trust network accessZTNA decides whether a principal may connect to a resource. Skipr decides whether the action taken over that connection may execute, and proves it.