Architecture comparison
Silentnox, KMS, and secrets vaults solve different problems.
Choose based on custody and runtime requirements, not product category labels.
| Capability | Silentnox | Cloud KMS | Secrets vault |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary job | Encrypt individual application fields | Manage cryptographic keys | Store and distribute secrets |
| Custody model | Two independent shards | Provider-held managed key | Centralized secret custody |
| Stores application plaintext | No | No, when used correctly | Often stores secret plaintext or decryptable values |
| Application stores | Project shard and encrypted blobs | Ciphertext and key identifiers | References or fetched secrets |
| Best fit | URLs, tokens, PII fragments requiring split trust | General envelope encryption and key lifecycle | Credentials, certificates, configuration secrets |
When Silentnox is a good fit
Use it when fields must be decrypted at runtime, you want encrypted blobs to remain in your database, and no single service should retain everything needed to decrypt them.
When to prefer a KMS
Use a KMS when you need broad key management, hardware-backed roots of trust, signing, certificate operations, or deep integration with a cloud provider. Silentnox can complement rather than replace that layer.
When to prefer a secrets vault
Use a secrets vault for database credentials, API credentials, certificates, and centrally distributed configuration secrets. It is not usually the right storage model for a large number of application data fields.