AnonymousSign in
Start from a neutral baseline and add what matters to you. Criteria are labeled by source — the platform baseline is architecture-neutral; buyer-contributed criteria are shown separately.
This evaluation is stored in your browser only. We cannot see it, and it is not tied to any account. Save it to a link or create an account to keep it across devices — you can export it at any time either way.
Signing up adds sharing with your team, sending this as an RFP to vendors, and private document sharing. Nothing above is taken away, and nothing here is sent anywhere until you choose to.
High-entropy generic detection is the most false-positive-prone category; a vendor unable to state even an approximate false-positive rate for it likely hasn't measured real-world accuracy.
Historical git-history scanning frequently surfaces more real secrets than current-state scanning alone (since a secret committed and later 'removed' often remains in history); look for a concrete customer figure comparing the two.
Live validation dramatically changes triage priority (an active credential is a P0, a dead one is cleanup) — a tool without validation forces manual, risky checking of every match.
Automated or guided revocation integrated with the actual credential provider is materially stronger than a bare alert; ask which providers have real revocation integration versus which are alert-only.
No buyer-contributed criteria yet
Verified buyers can suggest criteria (anonymized before pooling).
Pre-commit prevention closes the gap detection-only tools leave open, but adoption/bypass is a real, common failure mode — look for a customer reference addressing actual developer compliance, not just theoretical hook availability.
Look for smart suppression (pattern recognition for common test/example values) beyond pure manual allowlisting, which becomes an ongoing maintenance burden at scale.
Unified findings alongside SAST/SCA in one AppSec view is stronger than a standalone secrets-detection silo requiring separate triage.
Secrets frequently leak outside source code entirely; ask explicitly what's included versus what requires an additional module or tier, since marketing often implies broader coverage than the base product delivers.
Look for transparent, predictable scaling economics; a vendor unable to project cost at meaningfully higher scale creates real budget risk for a growing engineering organization.
Strong answers describe a real forensic capability to distinguish 'exposed but never used' from 'exposed and actively exploited,' with a customer example — this materially changes incident severity and response.
Trend-over-time reporting is a distinct capability from a real-time finding dashboard — confirm this exists as a maintained, exportable report.
This is a real, common buyer question given the functional overlap with broader non-human-identity/secrets-management platforms — a vendor should give an honest answer about the boundary and complementarity.
This is an unusually sensitive finding type — the report itself contains exploitable secrets, not just a description of a vulnerability — ask for a specific, strict access-control model beyond generic RBAC.
Ask for a specific answer on organization-wide default coverage versus per-repository opt-in — unmonitored repositories are a real, common gap if scanning isn't enforced by default across the whole organization.
False-negatives (missed real secrets) are arguably more dangerous than false-positives but far less commonly discussed — a vendor willing to discuss evasion-resistance testing is more credible than one only citing accuracy in terms of false positives.
Native compliance-evidence generation is materially more valuable than raw finding logs requiring manual compilation for every audit cycle.