Our Recommendation
For teams that require SAML-support or are serving static files, the combination of NGINX with OAuth2Proxy is a better choice as they support these use cases.
For any other use case, Pomerium provides easier deployment, configuration, and maintenance while providing stronger fine-grained access controls.
Evaluators Should Know
We base our comparison on a strict four-pillar criteria when evaluating access control solutions:
Usability: NGINX has clientless access, making them on par with Pomerium for user access flow.
Speed: There are slight differences for latency depending on architecture and setup, but for most use-cases there will be no discernible difference.
Security: NGINX and OAuth2Proxy both bring strong authentication capabilities, but are weaker with authorization out of the box when compared to Pomerium’s fine-grained authorization.
Context-Aware: NGINX isn’t able to integrate with institutionally-relevant data sources for additional sources of context when making access control decisions, making them not a fully zero trust solution.
Additionally, here are some additional considerations specific to a NGINX + OAuth2Proxy setup that any decisionmaker would want to know.
NGINX + OAuth2Proxy are separate products
Operational predictability is difficult when duct-taping two services together with unreliable support.
There are significant implications to combining two separate products to achieve the functionality that Pomerium offers as a unified solution. While NGINX is backed by F5's support (albeit with the impending End of Sale), OAuth2Proxy relies solely on community support.
Organizations considering this dual-product approach must plan for potential deployment issues and clearly define their support channels. This preparation is crucial for maintaining operational uptime and addressing any unforeseen challenges that may arise from integrating these distinct solutions.
Support Ambiguity: How will F5 handle support requests related to OAuth2Proxy integration? Will they provide assistance or redirect users to community forums, given that OAuth2Proxy is not their product?
Future of NGINX Support: Is there a possibility that F5 might discontinue support for additional NGINX products in the future, potentially leaving users with limited options?
Disaster Recovery Planning: In the event of an OAuth2Proxy failure or post-2025 when F5 support for NGINX may be limited, what is the estimated timeframe for restoring critical connections and infrastructure? How might this downtime impact business operations and user productivity?
Integration Complexity: What additional resources and expertise are required to effectively integrate and maintain NGINX and OAuth2Proxy as a cohesive solution compared to using a single, purpose-built platform like Pomerium?
Long-term Viability: How sustainable is this two-product solution in the long run, considering potential divergences in development paths, compatibility issues, license changes, or shifts in support structures?
Not zero trust without context-awareness
Zero trust requires verifying identity, device, and context.
While NGINX combined with OAuth2Proxy provides robust authentication capabilities, it falls short of being a true zero trust solution due to its lack of context-awareness. Zero trust architecture requires continuous verification of every access attempt based on multiple factors, including user identity, device health, network conditions, and other institutionally-relevant contextual information.
NGINX and OAuth2Proxy primarily focus on user authentication and basic authorization. They can verify user credentials and apply some access controls, but they don't have the built-in capability to assess the broader context of each access request. This limitation means they cannot:
Evaluate the security posture of the device making the request
Consider institutionally relevant sources of contextual data
Adapt access decisions based on real-time risk assessments
Without these context-aware capabilities, NGINX and OAuth2Proxy cannot fully implement the principle of "never trust, always verify" that is central to zero trust architecture. They provide a strong foundation for access control, but fall short of the comprehensive, adaptive approach required for a true zero trust environment.
In contrast, Pomerium is designed with context-awareness at their core, allowing them to make nuanced access decisions based on a wide range of factors, aligning more closely with zero trust principles.
Try Pomerium
Pomerium’s place as an open-source context-aware reverse proxy helps prevent ransomware attacks on internal services and resources. Whether you’re spinning up a new application or trying to add access control to a legacy service, Pomerium builds secure, clientless connections to internal web apps and services without requiring a corporate VPN. The result is:
Easier with clientless access and agentless architecture.
Faster by being tunnel-free and deployed where your apps and services are.
Safer because every single action is verified before allowed to execute.
Tailored to your organization’s needs by integrating all data for context-aware access.
Give Pomerium a try today!
