GaraTrust
5.0#27 in code signing softwareSelf-hosted
VisitGaraTrust vs SignPath
What both publish
| Fact | GaraTrust | SignPath |
|---|---|---|
| Access controls | Controls listed for manual production signing include MFA, device authentication, quorum approvals, IP whitelisting, just-in-time access, audit notifications, and granular key permissions. | Role-based access controls define who can sign which artifacts, when, and with which certificate. |
| Deployment | GaraTrust is available as SaaS or on-premises and supports air-gapped and classified environments. | SignPath describes its deployment options as SaaS, self-hosted, or hybrid. |
| Headquarters | San Diego, California, United States | Vienna, Austria |
| Key protection | Signing keys are stored as non-exportable in FIPS 140-2/3 HSMs and do not leave the hardware. | Private keys remain in SignPath-managed or customer-managed HSMs; the architecture page states FIPS 140-2 Level 3 compliance. |
| Malware scanning | Before approving a signature, GaraTrust can run configured static analysis, fuzzing, and malware-scanning tools on source code or binaries. | Artifacts can be scanned for malware before signing, with signing blocked when policy checks fail. |
GaraTrust plans
- GaraTrustPriced on request
SignPath plans
- Open Source Code SigningFree
- Code GovernancePriced on request
- Software Integrity PlatformPriced on request
Pick GaraTrust if…
It suits organizations needing controlled signing across many software and firmware targets. It also fits teams operating CI/CD pipelines, workstations, air-gapped systems, or classified environments.
Pick SignPath if…
SignPath suits development teams that need controls around signing and verifying software releases. Its free option is for qualifying open source projects; deployment choices also include self-hosted and hybrid.