Migrate from HashiCorp Vault to Infisical

Migrate from HashiCorp Vault to Infisical: what moves and what does not

Teams usually look at a move from Vault to self-hosted Infisical after a renewal quote, a licensing change under IBM, a data residency requirement or a growing sense of lock-in. Infisical documents an importer from HashiCorp Vault that brings across KV secrets, Kubernetes authentication configuration, dynamic secret configurations and policies. The harder work is not the import itself. It is re-pointing workloads, pipelines and agents at new endpoints and rebuilding the Vault-specific behavior that the importer does not carry over, such as lease semantics, templating and custom secrets engine setups. Treat this page as a planning guide. Confirm the current importer scope against the Infisical external migrations overview before you commit to a timeline. The project is usually run jointly. The platform team owns the self-hosted Infisical deployment, its database and Redis dependencies, backups and upgrades. The security team owns the policy model, machine identity design and approval workflows. Application teams own the changes to how each service authenticates and reads secrets. Agree early who signs off on each role, because most delays come from workloads nobody had inventoried. Start with an inventory of every Vault auth method, policy, path and client, including CI jobs, the Vault Agent sidecars and any Kubernetes injectors, and map each one to an Infisical identity type such as Kubernetes, AWS, OIDC or Universal Auth. The short answer on effort is that the data migration is bounded and the application cutover is not. Plan the cutover per service, keep Vault running read-only until every consumer has moved, and test rollback for each group. Ask Infisical and your own engineers to confirm which dynamic secret types, PKI roles and transit keys will be rebuilt by hand, and which Vault features, such as namespaces or Enterprise replication, have no equivalent in your deployment. Those gaps should appear in the written scope before work starts.

Which Vault capabilities map to Infisical and which need rework

This table maps the Vault capabilities most teams depend on to their closest Infisical equivalent and marks each as clean, needs rework or gap. Read it as a starting point for a migration inventory, not as a parity guarantee. Confirm each row against your Vault version and edition before you commit to a cutover plan.

Vault capability	Infisical equivalent	Status
KV secrets (v1 and v2)	Secrets per project and environment, with versioning and point-in-time recovery. The in-platform migration and bulk import bring KV secrets across.	Clean
Kubernetes auth method	Kubernetes machine identity authentication. The Vault Kubernetes auth configuration is part of what the importer brings over, but confirm bound service accounts and namespaces after import.	Needs rework
Dynamic database secrets	Dynamic secrets for databases such as PostgreSQL and MySQL. Map each Vault database role and its creation statements to an Infisical configuration and test lease behavior.	Needs rework
Policies and access control	Role-based access control, temporary access, access requests and approval workflows. Vault path-based policies do not translate one-to-one, so rewrite each policy as a role and check permissions per project.	Needs rework
Vault Agent injection	Infisical agent that injects secrets into workloads without code changes, plus the Kubernetes operator that delivers secrets and reloads deployments. Templates and sidecar behavior will differ and need retesting.	Needs rework
PKI secrets engine	Private PKI for X.509 certificates with ACME and EST enrollment. Confirm issuer hierarchy, certificate templates and CRL handling against your current CA design.	Needs rework
Transit encryption	Key management service for encrypt and decrypt operations. Applications calling the Transit API must be changed to the Infisical KMS interface, and key versions must be migrated or re-encrypted deliberately.	Needs rework
Enterprise namespaces, replication and HSM seal	No documented one-to-one equivalent in the supplied facts. Confirm with the vendor how multi-tenant isolation, disaster recovery and HSM-backed key custody will be handled in your deployment.	Gap

Which Vault data and integrations can be imported or rebuilt

Infisical's documented Vault importer covers a defined set of Vault objects, so the migration splits into what moves across and what your teams must recreate by hand. Plan both halves before scheduling any cutover, because the rebuild work usually takes longer than the import.

KV secrets and their versions

The importer brings across KV secrets from Vault, which is the part most teams expect. Confirm whether your Vault KV version and mount layout are covered by the importer for your Infisical release, and whether historical versions come across or only current values. Reconcile secret paths against Infisical's project and environment model before importing, since a flat Vault path does not map one to one onto a project and environment.

Kubernetes auth configuration

The Kubernetes authentication configuration is one of the objects the importer carries over. Check that the cluster API endpoint, service account token reviewer and CA certificate settings are still valid from the Infisical network, because these values often point at clusters that have since been rebuilt. Each workload's Vault role binding still needs a matching Infisical identity and access rule.

Dynamic secret configurations and policies

Dynamic secret configurations and policies are imported as definitions, not as live credentials. Database connection settings, passwords for the root account and policy scopes must be reviewed and re-entered where the importer cannot resolve them. Test one dynamic secret end to end on a non-production database before relying on it, and confirm that existing leases are revoked or left to expire under a planned sequence.

Application Vault client calls

Applications that call the Vault API directly, through an SDK or with HTTP requests, will not work against Infisical until their code changes. Inventory every service that reads a secret path, identify the client library in use, and plan one change per service. Infisical's SDKs and agent can reduce code change in some cases, but each path and authentication method must be tested in staging.

Vault Agent templates and injectors

Vault Agent templates and Kubernetes sidecar injectors render secrets into files using Vault-specific template syntax. These do not transfer, so each template must be rewritten for Infisical's Kubernetes operator or agent, or replaced with a secret sync. Verify file paths, permissions and reload behavior for every workload, since a wrong template can silently leave a stale or empty file in place.

CI jobs and Vault secret syncs

CI pipelines that fetch secrets with Vault tokens, roles or CLI commands must be rebuilt with Infisical machine identities. Any Vault secrets sync to cloud or CI stores is a separate integration and must be recreated as an Infisical secret sync or an external process. Ask for a full list of pipelines and sync targets from your CI system rather than relying on memory.

Export through the API, not snapshots

Raft snapshots only restore into the same Vault cluster with the same unseal keys, so they cannot carry data into Infisical. Any export of secret values must go through the Vault API using a tightly scoped, time-limited token, with output written to encrypted storage and destroyed after import. Confirm the importer reads the data directly from Vault, and plan who approves and records each export.

How to sequence a Vault to Infisical cutover

This sequence moves secrets, auth configuration and consuming workloads from Vault to a self-hosted Infisical instance in controlled stages, so each application can be verified and rolled back without a single high-risk switch. Each step closes with a named output that gates the next one.

Build the inventory of secrets and consumers
Your platform team lists every Vault mount, KV path, auth method, policy, dynamic secret configuration and Kubernetes auth role, then maps each one to the workloads, pipelines and agents that read it. Record which applications use the Vault API directly, which use the Vault Agent or an injector, and which depend on a sync to another platform. The output is a consumer map with an owner for each application namespace. Confirm the inventory against Vault's audit logs for a representative period, since stale paths often have no active consumers.
Stand up a pilot Infisical instance
Deploy self-hosted Infisical in your own environment using the single Docker container, Docker Compose or the official Helm chart, depending on your platform standard. Your security team reviews the database, Redis, encryption key handling, backup approach and network exposure before any secret is loaded. The pilot project and its environments are created to mirror one low-risk application. The output is a pilot sign-off that confirms the instance meets your hosting baseline and that any enterprise features you need, such as SSO or gateways, are licensed or deliberately deferred.
Run a dry-run import and review the report
Use Infisical's external migration documentation to run the Vault import against the pilot project first, using either the in-platform migration through an App Connection or a bulk import, depending on your scope. Compare imported KV secrets, Kubernetes authentication configuration, dynamic secret configurations and policies with your consumer map. Flag anything that did not map, such as Vault-specific policy syntax or plugins with no Infisical equivalent. The output is an import report with each gap assigned to a decision: rebuild, replace or retire.
Re-point a pilot application and verify
Choose one non-critical application, switch its secret retrieval to Infisical through the Kubernetes operator or the agent, and confirm that it reads the same values as before. Test rotation, a deployment reload and a failure of the Infisical endpoint so you know how the workload behaves. Keep the Vault path readable during this window. The output is a verified pilot run with recorded test results and a rollback runbook that states how to revert the application's configuration to Vault in a single change.
Run both systems in parallel for a subset of workloads
Move a defined group of workloads to Infisical while the rest continue to read from Vault. Keep secrets in both systems aligned during this period, and treat any divergence as a blocking defect. Review access logs in both platforms to confirm that every consumer appears where you expect and that no workload has silently fallen back. The output is a parallel-run register listing each workload, its current source of truth and its open issues, reviewed by the application owners before the next group moves.
Cut over each application namespace
Move the remaining workloads one application namespace at a time, starting with lower-risk namespaces and ending with those that hold the most sensitive secrets. Each cutover uses the rollback runbook from the pilot, with the owner of the application present and a named approver for the change. Revoke or freeze Vault write access to paths that have moved, so no team keeps updating the old source. The output is a cutover record per namespace showing the date, approver, verification result and any rollback performed.
Decommission Vault after the agreed retention period
Once every consumer reads from Infisical, export the audit trail and any configuration you must retain for compliance evidence, then agree a retention period with your risk and compliance owners before shutting Vault down. Remove Vault tokens and auth methods, revoke leases, and document which secrets were rotated during the migration so that no value copied from Vault remains in use. Your compliance team should confirm the evidence it needs from both systems. The output is a decommissioning record that states what was retired, where the retained evidence is stored and who signed off the end of Vault.

How the Infisical platform and Vault parts connect during the migration

Vault stays the source of truth while the two platforms run in parallel, so the migration is a sequence of controlled handoffs rather than a single switch. The Infisical side receives data through either the in-platform migration using an App Connection or a one-time organization-wide bulk import, and the Vault cluster keeps serving existing clients until each consumer has been re-pointed. Treat Vault as read-only for the import window where your change process allows it, and record which secret paths are authoritative in each system at every stage. Confirm with your own environment whether your Vault version and auth methods are supported by the import path before you schedule the first run.

Once secrets land in Infisical, the trust boundaries change shape. Each machine identity authenticates to Infisical through one of the supported methods, including Kubernetes, AWS, GCP, Azure, OIDC or Universal Auth, and the identity, not a shared token, becomes the thing you audit. In a Kubernetes cluster, the Infisical Kubernetes operator or the injection agent then pulls secrets for the workload, so the cluster service accounts, the operator's own credentials and the Infisical project scope together decide who can read what. Map each Vault Kubernetes auth role and policy to an Infisical identity and project before cutover, and verify the mapping in a non-production cluster, since the import carries configuration across but does not prove that the new trust relationships match what the old ones allowed.

Set access controls before cutover, not after. Define RBAC roles per project and environment, decide which identities may use temporary access, and configure access requests and approval workflows for production paths so that a re-pointed workload cannot quietly gain wider reach than it had in Vault. Run a short review with the owners of each application and the security team to confirm who approves what, and document the approvers in the runbook. Ask your Infisical contact or check the self-hosting documentation to confirm which of these governance features are available in your deployment tier, because the self-hosting documentation states that enterprise features such as SSO or gateways need an enterprise license.

What usually goes wrong in a Vault to Infisical migration

Most failed Vault migrations do not fail on the import itself. They fail at cutover, when applications, leases, identities and copies of secrets stop agreeing with each other. The six risks below are the ones teams most often find late, each with a check to run before the old path is switched off.

Applications calling Vault APIs directly

Services that call Vault's HTTP API with hard-coded paths and response parsing will fail once they point at Infisical, because its endpoints, paths and response shapes differ. Inventory every client that uses the Vault SDK, curl scripts or custom wrappers, not only the ones that appear in your deployment manifests. Test each one in a staging project before changing its address. Illustrative example: a deploy script that reads secret/data/prod/db may need a rewrite rather than a configuration change.

Dynamic credentials left active

Database users that Vault issued as dynamic secrets keep working until their leases expire or are revoked. If cutover moves applications to Infisical dynamic secrets while Vault still holds live leases, the same database may have two credential sources running at once and no clear owner for either. Before cutover, list active leases, decide which to let expire and which to revoke, and confirm that the new Infisical dynamic secret configuration issues credentials your database accepts. Record the revocation step in the runbook with a named operator.

Kubernetes auth roles that do not match

Vault Kubernetes auth roles bind a service account, namespace and audience to a policy. Infisical's Kubernetes authentication is configured as a machine identity, so the bound service accounts, namespaces and token review settings must be re-declared rather than assumed to carry over. A mismatch usually shows up as a pod that starts and then receives a permission error. Compare each Vault role with its Infisical identity, confirm the service account and namespace pairs, and test authentication from a pod in each cluster before cutover.

Implicit policies lost in translation

Vault policies are path-based, and some access rules exist only because of how paths were laid out, such as a wildcard on a team prefix or a deny on a legacy path. Infisical organizes access through projects, environments, folders and role-based access control, so a path rule can grant more or less than intended after import. Write down what each Vault policy allows in plain terms, map it to an Infisical role and folder scope, and have the application owner confirm the result. Test denials as well as grants.

SSO and gateway features need a license

Single sign-on and gateways are features that Infisical's self-hosting documentation says require enterprise licensing. If your Vault setup relies on SSO for operator access or on network gateways for private targets, those controls will not be available in a community-only deployment. Confirm which of these features your current Vault deployment uses, check whether a license is needed, and plan a compensating control for operator login, such as a hardened local admin process, until the licensing decision is made.

Secrets drifting between two systems

Teams often keep Vault as the source of truth while they test Infisical, then update a secret in one place and forget the other. Within weeks, applications on each side read different values and rotations break in only one environment. Pick a single system of record for every secret before the first import, freeze writes to Vault for each migrated path at cutover, and run a comparison of values or version counts before retiring the old copy. Keep the import logs so you can explain each difference.

How the migration changes by starting point and team size

A single Vault cluster that holds KV secrets and uses Kubernetes auth is the simplest starting point. Infisical's Vault importer covers KV secrets, Kubernetes authentication configuration and policies, so a one-time organization-wide bulk import is usually the most direct route when the secret count is modest and the owning teams can accept a coordinated cutover.

Path: a bulk import fits when a single security or platform owner controls every mount and can freeze writes during the cutover window.
Mapping review: check how each KV path and Vault policy lands in Infisical projects, environments and folders before importing, since the structure rarely matches Vault's paths one for one.
Kubernetes auth: confirm that the imported Kubernetes authentication configuration matches each cluster's API server, service account and token review settings in your environment.
Re-pointing: plan the change for each workload, whether it reads through the Infisical Kubernetes operator, the agent or a direct API call.
Parallel run: keep Vault read-only for a defined period so you can compare values and roll back.

Before cutover, confirm with your own inventory that no consumer reads a path that the import skipped or renamed.

Questions buyers ask before a Vault to Infisical migration

What drives the cost of moving from Vault to self-hosted Infisical?

The cost is driven mostly by the number of secrets, policies, auth methods and consumers that must be re-pointed, plus the infrastructure you run Infisical on. Infisical's self-hosted software is MIT licensed outside its ee directories, so the license line item is zero for the core product, but features such as SSO or gateways require enterprise licensing according to Infisical's self-hosting documentation. Recurring costs include the Infisical hosting infrastructure, the PostgreSQL and Redis dependencies (bundled in the official Helm chart), backups and staff time for upgrades. One-time costs include the migration project itself and the cost of retiring Vault. Ask any partner to quote these components separately, and ask your Infisical contact which features your environment needs under enterprise licensing.

How long does a Vault to Infisical migration take?

Duration depends mainly on how many consumers read secrets from Vault, not on how many secrets exist. Each application, pipeline, Kubernetes workload and agent needs its auth method, paths and sync behavior checked and re-pointed, and each owner must test the change. Dynamic secret configurations and policies usually need more review than static KV entries because they affect database access and permissions. Infisical's documentation describes both an in-platform migration through an App Connection and a one-time organization-wide bulk import, and the right choice affects the schedule. Ask for a written inventory of consumers and a fixed-scope plan with milestones before accepting any timeline.

What does the migration need from our own team?

The work needs read access to Vault, including policies, auth mounts and the secret engines in use, and administrative access to the Infisical instance and Kubernetes clusters where workloads run. You also need named owners for each application, CI pipeline and agent, because only they can confirm the new configuration works. A security or compliance contact should approve the target access model, since roles, machine identities and approval workflows are set up in Infisical. Expect your team to schedule change windows and to test in lower environments before production. Ask the partner to list these inputs in the written scope so that your team can plan its time.

Can an internal platform team do the migration without outside help?

A platform team with Vault, Kubernetes and CI experience can migrate a small estate on its own, especially if the number of consumers is limited and the team has time to test. The harder parts are usually inventorying every consumer, mapping Vault policies to Infisical roles and machine identities, and proving that dynamic secrets and rotation still work after the switch. Outside help is most useful for a fixed-scope inventory, a tested cutover plan, and documentation that auditors can follow. DeployOpen plans, implements, integrates and documents self-hosted platforms in your own infrastructure, and most engagements are fixed-scope with agreed deliverables and timelines in writing before work starts.

Do we need an Infisical enterprise license for SSO?

Yes, Infisical's self-hosting documentation states that enterprise features such as SSO require enterprise licensing, so SSO for human users is not part of the default open-source configuration. Machine identities are different: they can authenticate to Infisical with Kubernetes, AWS, GCP, Azure, OIDC or Universal Auth, which may cover most workloads without SSO. Confirm with Infisical which features are included in your deployment model, and ask any partner to quote licensing as a separate line item. Also confirm whether your identity provider requirements can be met by the methods your applications actually use.

What happens to our Vault data during and after the move?

Vault keeps running until consumers are re-pointed, so the usual approach is to import or copy secrets into Infisical, verify them, move consumers one group at a time, and then retire Vault paths once nothing reads them. Infisical's importer covers KV secrets, Kubernetes authentication configuration, dynamic secret configurations and policies, but it does not carry over everything Vault can do, so each secrets engine and auth method needs a documented decision. Keep a restorable copy of Vault data and its configuration under your retention policy until the cutover is accepted. Ask any partner how they will handle secret values in transit, where temporary exports are stored, and how they will prove deletion afterward.

What Vault features have no direct Infisical equivalent?

Vault's many secrets engines, Vault-specific policy language, and Enterprise capabilities such as namespaces, replication and HSM-based auto-unseal do not map one to one onto Infisical. Infisical does provide dynamic secrets for PostgreSQL and MySQL, a private PKI, a key management service and privileged access management with session recording, so some needs have a direct match. Where a Vault engine has no counterpart, the choice is to keep Vault for that workload, rebuild the function, or accept the gap. Ask the partner for a written mapping of every engine and auth method in use, and confirm each Infisical capability with the vendor before relying on it.

How do we check that the migrated secrets and access rules work?

Verification should cover three things: that each secret value matches its source, that every consumer authenticates and reads the expected secret, and that access denials match the old Vault policies. Testing should run in a non-production environment first, with a rollback path for each consumer group. Dynamic secrets and rotation need a separate test because they create credentials at runtime. Record each test result, because compliance assessors will ask for evidence. DeployOpen prepares systems, controls and evidence for compliance assessments, but independent auditors and certification bodies issue any audit report or certification.

What drives the cost and duration of the migration

The main cost of moving from Vault to self-hosted Infisical is usually staff time, not software. Infisical's repository is MIT licensed outside its ee directories, so the core platform carries no license fee to self-host. Features such as SSO and gateways, which the Infisical self-hosting documentation says require enterprise licensing, are a separate line item. Confirm early which of your current Vault capabilities depend on those features, and get the license price in writing before you commit to a design. The cost of running Infisical itself is infrastructure: compute, storage and backups, plus PostgreSQL and Redis if you deploy the official Helm chart, which bundles both. If you already operate managed or self-managed PostgreSQL and Redis, decide whether Infisical uses those instead, because that choice changes who patches and backs up the database.

Staff effort concentrates in four areas: inventorying secrets, policies, Kubernetes auth roles and dynamic secret configurations; mapping them to Infisical projects, environments and machine identities; re-pointing applications, CI jobs and agents; and testing rollback. Inventory and re-pointing scale with the number of consuming services, not with the number of secrets, so ask for the migration effort to be scoped by application count. Plan for a parallel run in which Vault stays live while consumers move, and ask whether any Vault support contract must continue through that period. Those costs are one-time, except for the recurring infrastructure, the enterprise license if you need it, and the operational work of keeping Infisical patched and upgraded, which the Infisical releases page shows happens often. Ask any quote to separate these items and to state which ones are fixed and which depend on your environment.

When requesting a quote, ask for a written scope listing the Vault mounts and auth methods in scope, the Infisical deployment model and whether enterprise features are included, the number of consuming applications and pipelines, the parallel-run period, and the testing and cutover criteria. Ask who is responsible for the Vault support contract and who issues the Infisical license. Any engagement scope should also state what is out of scope, such as Vault features Infisical does not provide, which the sibling comparison covers. The main factors that raise cost are many dynamic secret engines, custom plugins, Vault Enterprise features in use, and a large number of undocumented consumers. Those are the items to surface in discovery, before any number is agreed.

Which factors raise or lower the cost of moving from Vault to Infisical

This table lists the drivers that change the effort of moving from Vault to self-hosted Infisical, with a practical way to keep each one down. Read each row against your own Vault inventory, since the largest costs usually come from the number of consuming systems and from features that have no direct Infisical counterpart. The main takeaway is that the import tooling covers secrets and configuration, while re-pointing workloads and proving the change to auditors is where most of the work sits.

Driver	Why it matters	How to keep it down
Number of secrets and mounts	Each KV path, mount and project mapping must be planned, and bulk import volume drives validation and cleanup time.	Inventory mounts and paths first, retire stale secrets, and map Vault paths to Infisical projects and environments before importing.
Consuming applications and agents	Every workload that reads from Vault needs a new endpoint, auth method and test before cutover, so this usually dominates effort.	Group consumers by auth method and environment, migrate low-risk workloads first, and use the Infisical agent or Kubernetes operator where code changes are costly.
Dynamic secrets and database roles	Dynamic secret configurations for databases such as PostgreSQL and MySQL must be recreated and tested against live roles, and lease behavior may differ.	Confirm which dynamic engines are in use, recreate them in a non-production project, and verify revocation and rotation before retiring Vault leases.
PKI and certificate issuance	Vault PKI issuers, roles and trust chains are not covered by the standard secrets import, so certificate authorities may need separate planning and reissuance.	Decide whether Infisical's private PKI replaces the Vault CA, or keep Vault PKI running during a staged transition, and confirm the certificate chain with the relevant teams.
Vault Enterprise features in use	Namespaces, replication, Sentinel policies, and sync features require Enterprise, and some have no direct Infisical equivalent, which can force redesign.	List Enterprise features actually in use, remove unused ones before migration, and confirm each remaining feature's Infisical equivalent or alternative in writing.
Kubernetes footprint	Kubernetes auth roles, service accounts, injectors and secret delivery patterns each need new configuration, and clusters may differ in version and setup.	Standardize on the Infisical Kubernetes operator or agent for a pilot cluster, and reuse a single auth configuration pattern across clusters.
CI and cloud sync dependencies	Pipelines, cloud secret stores and third-party syncs that pull from Vault must be re-pointed, and missed consumers fail silently or late.	Build a consumer register from pipeline configs and cloud integrations, then move each sync with a rollback plan and a tested failure check.
Compliance evidence for the change	Assessors will expect records of the inventory, access changes, approvals, and cutover testing, and these must be produced during the move, not after.	Agree the evidence list (change records, access reviews, import logs, cutover tests) with your auditor before starting, and keep it in the project record as work proceeds.

How DeployOpen scopes and runs a Vault to Infisical migration

DeployOpen is a Chainscore Labs company that plans, implements, integrates, hardens, backs up, documents and supports self-hosted open-source platforms in your own infrastructure. The cards below describe how a Vault to Infisical migration is scoped, delivered and kept running, and which parts of the work stay with your own teams and auditors.

Written scope before any work

Most engagements are fixed-scope, so the list of Vault mounts, auth methods, Kubernetes clusters and applications to move is agreed in writing before work starts. Deliverables and timelines are written into that scope. For this migration, the scope should name which secrets are imported through the bulk import and which are moved in-platform through an App Connection, because the two paths carry different risks and different owners.

Inventory of Vault dependencies

Before anything is imported, the team maps every consumer of Vault: applications reading KV paths, Kubernetes auth roles, the Vault Agent or injector setups, CI jobs and dynamic secret roles for databases. Each item is classified as imported, rebuilt in Infisical, or retired. This inventory is the main input to the cutover plan and is usually where undocumented dependencies surface.

Re-pointing applications and agents

Applications, the Infisical Kubernetes operator or agent, and CI pipelines each need new machine identities and new secret paths. DeployOpen plans the order of changes so that workloads switch in controlled batches with rollback steps. Teams should confirm how each workload authenticates today and which Infisical method (Kubernetes, AWS, GCP, Azure, OIDC or Universal Auth) will replace it.

Hardening and access design

The Infisical deployment is configured with role-based access, approval workflows and privileged access settings matched to the access model that existed in Vault policies. Hardening covers the self-hosted database and cache, network exposure, TLS and administrator accounts. Any feature that needs an enterprise license, such as SSO or gateways, is identified during scoping so that licensing is a known cost before implementation.

Backup, recovery and runbooks

Because Vault data cannot be moved simply by restoring a snapshot into another system, the migration plan defines how secrets are read out, where the export is held and how it is destroyed after import. DeployOpen sets up backups of the Infisical database, tests restores, and writes runbooks for rotation and incident response so the platform is operable after handover.

Evidence and ongoing support

DeployOpen prepares configuration records, access reviews and operational evidence that your internal teams and independent auditors can assess. DeployOpen does not issue audit reports, attestations or certifications. Ongoing support, upgrades and continuous testing are available as retainers, so you should ask in the quote which upgrade and patch responsibilities transfer to your team at handover.

Migrate from HashiCorp Vault to Infisical