4 ms·

Okta is so lame no wonder is so popular among corporate mediocrity.

danielmarkbruce 3y ago
Out of interest - what makes you say this? I'm not disagreeing, just want to understand the general (and seemingly commonly held) belief that they suck.
- mc32 3y ago
  They have lots of ready to go connectors which makes it easy to integrate lots of apps instead of figuring out all the SAML settings... but any SAML provider will work as long as you can map the right fields. But people like easy things and Okta makes it easy. Many apps who don't have a connector will have docs on how to set things up with Okta, for others you'll have to take the Okta instructions and figure out what that means for an alternate provider. There are other things like counter-signatures which may be easier to do with Okta but also possible with others, if you have the right docs.
  - danielmarkbruce 3y ago
    Thank you. Ok another question - where do you see Cerby fitting into that mix?
  - uxp8u61q 3y ago
    I'm a bit confused, this seems like a list of pros or at least neutral things?
    - mc32 3y ago
      People use them because they are easy to use, on the other hand their security issues over the past few years could make clients consider alternatives.
starttoaster 3y ago
As far as SaaS SSO providers go, I think they're pretty cool. But all the breach related news lately has me wondering what the best alternatives are. You sound like you would have opinions.
PaulWaldman 3y ago
What is your preferred alternative?
- dijit 3y ago
  Out of interest, why would you not just use the directory services that you get bundled with google workspace, azureAD (Now: Entra) or freeipa/keycloak? All of these support oauth2 and SAML, and dynamic groups for less than the cost of each and okta (it seems to be the case everywhere I have seen okta used, another of the above providers is used additionally).
  - samcat116 3y ago
    If you have AzureAD you don’t typically also have Okta. Also the features you listed are like 20% of Okta’s functionality here.
    - patmorgan23 3y ago
      If you have office licenses you have AzureAD. Lots of places have office licenses for all of or most of their employees and still have Okta.
      - samcat116 3y ago
        AzureAD licenses near the feature equivalent of Okta are much more expensive than base office licenses that only give you access to the office apps and cloud storage.
  - latchkey 3y ago
    I kind of wondered the same thing the last time they were hacked... someone answered with this: "Okta: comprehensive scim allowing your IT instead of random application admins throughout your company to manage user provisioning / deprovisioning. Start pages that don't require users to remember urls but instead show them a list of applications they can use. Adaptive MFA with IT-administered settings (though Google's super-enterprisey solutions may have sth here.)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37995670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37995670 Personally, I just go with the Google Workspace and call it a day. Start page is one of those nice to have, but not required features in my book.

Out of interest - what makes you say this? I'm not disagreeing, just want to understand the general (and seemingly commonly held) belief that they suck.

mc32 3y ago
They have lots of ready to go connectors which makes it easy to integrate lots of apps instead of figuring out all the SAML settings... but any SAML provider will work as long as you can map the right fields. But people like easy things and Okta makes it easy. Many apps who don't have a connector will have docs on how to set things up with Okta, for others you'll have to take the Okta instructions and figure out what that means for an alternate provider. There are other things like counter-signatures which may be easier to do with Okta but also possible with others, if you have the right docs.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  Thank you. Ok another question - where do you see Cerby fitting into that mix?
- uxp8u61q 3y ago
  I'm a bit confused, this seems like a list of pros or at least neutral things?
  - mc32 3y ago
    People use them because they are easy to use, on the other hand their security issues over the past few years could make clients consider alternatives.

starttoaster 3y ago

As far as SaaS SSO providers go, I think they're pretty cool. But all the breach related news lately has me wondering what the best alternatives are. You sound like you would have opinions.

PaulWaldman 3y ago

What is your preferred alternative?

dijit 3y ago
Out of interest, why would you not just use the directory services that you get bundled with google workspace, azureAD (Now: Entra) or freeipa/keycloak? All of these support oauth2 and SAML, and dynamic groups for less than the cost of each and okta (it seems to be the case everywhere I have seen okta used, another of the above providers is used additionally).
- samcat116 3y ago
  If you have AzureAD you don’t typically also have Okta. Also the features you listed are like 20% of Okta’s functionality here.
  - patmorgan23 3y ago
    If you have office licenses you have AzureAD. Lots of places have office licenses for all of or most of their employees and still have Okta.
    - samcat116 3y ago
      AzureAD licenses near the feature equivalent of Okta are much more expensive than base office licenses that only give you access to the office apps and cloud storage.
- latchkey 3y ago
  I kind of wondered the same thing the last time they were hacked... someone answered with this: "Okta: comprehensive scim allowing your IT instead of random application admins throughout your company to manage user provisioning / deprovisioning. Start pages that don't require users to remember urls but instead show them a list of applications they can use. Adaptive MFA with IT-administered settings (though Google's super-enterprisey solutions may have sth here.)" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37995670 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37995670 Personally, I just go with the Google Workspace and call it a day. Start page is one of those nice to have, but not required features in my book.