PKWARE vs. Varonis

Varonis tells you when your data is accessed. What happens when it's taken?

PKWARE vs Varonis is the comparison that surfaces a specific gap. Behavioral monitoring and file-level encryption solve adjacent problems. If you have one and not the other, you have a compliance gap, and a breach exposure that stays invisible until it isn't.

See What's Unencrypted in Your Environment See the comparison ↓
$10.22M
Average cost of a data breach in the U.S. (IBM, 2025)
$1.9M
HIPAA penalty cap per violation category per year
$0
Value of an exfiltrated file that was encrypted when it left
The Problem

Classification without encryption still leaves the files readable.

Varonis does real work. That's the problem with the comparison. It makes it easy to assume the data security box is checked.

What Varonis does
Watches who touches your data.

Access governance, behavioral baselines, anomaly detection, least-privilege automation. Varonis maps who has access to what, and flags when something looks wrong.

What Varonis doesn't do
Change the state of the files.

The files Varonis monitors are still readable. If access results in exfiltration, through valid credentials, an unmonitored channel, or a misconfigured share, the data leaves as plaintext.

Varonis tells you who touched the file. It doesn't change what they can do with it once they have it. PK Protect encrypts the data itself. It doesn't matter who has the file, where it travels, or what tools they use to open it.

Capability Comparison

PKWARE vs Varonis: side by side.

What each platform covers, and where the gaps are.

Capability Varonis PK Protect PKWARE
Data Discovery & Classification
Sensitive data discovery across file shares✓✓
Classification across endpoints and servers✓✓
Mainframe (z/OS) data discovery✕✓
Sensitivity labeling (via Microsoft Purview integration)✓✓
Encryption & Data Protection
File-level encryption at rest✕✓
Persistent encryption that travels with the file✕✓
Encryption across legacy and on-premises environments✕✓
Data masking and redaction✕✓
Encrypted file remains protected after exfiltration✕✓
Threat Detection & Access Governance
Behavioral analytics and anomaly detection✓✕
Least-privilege automation✓✕
Data access governance across SaaS and cloud✓✕
Compliance Documentation
PCI DSS 4.0.1 Req 3.5.1 (encryption of stored PAN)✕✓
HIPAA encryption of ePHI at rest (addressable)✕✓
GLBA encryption of customer financial data✕✓
NIST 800-171 / CMMC Level 2 SC.L2-3.13.8 (CUI encryption)✕✓
Audit-ready policy console documentationPartial✓
Deployment & Environment Coverage
Windows endpoints and servers✓✓
Citrix and VDI environments✓✓
Cloud storage (S3, Azure Blob, SharePoint)✓✓
Mainframe / z/OS✕✓
Transparent key access via Microsoft Entra / AD✓✓

✓ Full capability. Partial means limited scope. ✕ means not supported. Varonis capabilities reflect publicly documented features and require independent verification before publishing.

Note on Varonis and Microsoft Purview

Varonis integrates with Microsoft Purview Information Protection to inherit sensitivity labels and extend classification context. That integration is real and useful. It doesn't change the underlying gap.

Neither Varonis nor Purview natively encrypts files across the full range of environments your compliance frameworks cover. Sensitivity labels can trigger encryption inside the Microsoft ecosystem, but that protection ends where the ecosystem ends: on-premises file systems, legacy applications, mainframes, and file types Microsoft labeling doesn't natively support.

PK Protect runs alongside both. It uses Purview labels where they exist and applies encryption everywhere they don't reach.

Compliance Requirements

Your frameworks are asking about encryption specifically.

Behavioral monitoring doesn't satisfy these controls. Encryption does.

PCI DSS 4.0.1
Requirement 3.5.1. PAN rendered unreadable wherever stored.

PCI DSS 4.0.1 Requirement 3.5.1 specifies that stored Primary Account Numbers be rendered unreadable using one of four approaches: keyed cryptographic hashes, truncation, index tokens with securely stored pads, or strong cryptography with associated key management. Monitoring tools that classify data as containing PAN do not satisfy this requirement on their own.

HIPAA Security Rule
Encryption of ePHI at rest is an addressable specification.

Under 45 CFR §164.312(a)(2)(iv), encryption of ePHI is an addressable implementation specification. Addressable means a covered entity must implement encryption, or document a specific equivalent alternative and justify why. The practical standard for HHS audits is encryption.

GLBA Safeguards Rule
Encryption of customer information in transit and at rest.

The FTC's updated Safeguards Rule at 16 CFR §314.4(c)(3) requires encryption of customer information in transit over external networks and at rest. Financial institutions carrying unencrypted customer data on endpoints, servers, or portable media carry direct regulatory exposure.

NIST 800-171 / CMMC Level 2
SC.L2-3.13.8 and SC.L2-3.13.16. Cryptographic protection of CUI.

NIST 800-171 (the standard CMMC Level 2 is built on) requires cryptographic mechanisms to prevent unauthorized disclosure of CUI during transmission, and protection of the confidentiality of CUI at rest. CMMC Level 2 further requires FIPS-validated cryptographic modules under SC.L2-3.13.11. Defense contractors and DIB suppliers without file-level encryption on CUI-bearing systems carry findings before the assessment starts.

The Argument

Why well-run security teams carry this gap.

There's a rationalization that runs through mature security organizations. They've invested in Varonis. They have classification. They have access governance, anomaly detection, and least-privilege automation. The data is mapped. The permissions are tightened. The instinct is that the problem is solved, and that instinct makes sense. All of it represents real work and real risk reduction.

The rationalization breaks at one specific place. The state of the files themselves.

Varonis makes your environment harder to exploit. It narrows who can access sensitive data, flags when access looks wrong, and helps you find data you didn't know was overexposed. What it doesn't do is change what the data looks like to someone who gets it. The files are still readable. If an authorized user exfiltrates them, or an attacker uses stolen credentials that look normal to a behavioral baseline, the contents of those files leave as plaintext.

PK Protect takes the next step. It finds the sensitive data, classifies it, and encrypts it by policy. That encryption is file-level. It lives in the file, not in the network path. A file encrypted by PK Protect stays encrypted when it's emailed, uploaded to SharePoint, copied to a USB drive, or exfiltrated by a threat actor who spent six months building access. The data is protected because it's protected. Not because you caught the access in time.

Varonis stays in place. It keeps doing what it does. PK Protect closes the gap it was never designed to fill.

The Evaluation

Every POV is scoped to your environment.

Encryption projects fail when they're deployed against assumptions instead of evidence. Our process is built to surface every workflow that matters before production.

Step 01
Scope

We work with your team to identify the file types, repositories, applications, and user workflows that need to stay intact. Citrix, VDI, analytics environments, legacy file systems, mainframe. Whatever's actually in your stack.

Step 02
Success criteria

You define what success looks like before we start. Specific workflows that must continue to work. Specific compliance evidence that must be producible. Specific deployment timelines that must hold. Those criteria become the gate.

Step 03
POV in your environment

PK Protect deploys in a scoped test environment that mirrors production. We validate encryption, key access, audit logging, and every workflow on the success criteria list.

Step 04
Decision

If every criterion is met, you have evidence. If anything fails, you know before any commitment. The POV is the test. Not the sales pitch.

Common Questions

What buyers ask before they decide.

Does Varonis encrypt data at rest?
No. Varonis is a behavioral analytics and data access governance platform. It classifies sensitive data and monitors access behavior. It does not encrypt files. Files that Varonis monitors remain readable in plaintext. If those files are exfiltrated through valid credentials, an unmonitored channel, or a misconfiguration, the contents are accessible to whoever has them.
Does Varonis satisfy PCI DSS 4.0.1 Requirement 3.5.1?
No. PCI DSS 4.0.1 Requirement 3.5.1 requires stored PAN to be rendered unreadable using one of four specific approaches: keyed cryptographic hashes, truncation, index tokens, or strong cryptography. Varonis classifies data as containing PAN and monitors access to it. It does not render the data unreadable. A dedicated encryption or tokenization solution is required for compliance.
We already have Varonis. Isn't PK Protect redundant?
No. They solve different problems. Varonis handles access governance, threat detection, and permissions hygiene. PK Protect handles encryption at rest and in transit. Varonis protects by reducing access and detecting threats. PK Protect protects by encrypting the data itself. Both stay in place. Varonis narrows the attack surface. PK Protect ensures that if something gets through anyway, the data is unreadable.
Doesn't Varonis use Microsoft Purview to encrypt sensitive files?
Varonis integrates with Microsoft Purview Information Protection to inherit sensitivity labels. Purview labels can trigger encryption inside the Microsoft 365 ecosystem on supported file types. That coverage ends where the Microsoft ecosystem ends. On-premises servers, legacy file systems, mainframes, and file types Microsoft labeling doesn't natively support are still readable. PK Protect uses Purview labels where they exist and applies encryption everywhere they don't reach.
Does HIPAA require encryption?
HIPAA's Security Rule designates encryption of ePHI as an addressable implementation specification under 45 CFR §164.312. Addressable means a covered entity must implement encryption, or document a specific equivalent alternative and justify why. In practice, covered entities and business associates who cannot document a justified equivalent face direct audit exposure. Encryption is the de facto standard for HIPAA compliance on ePHI at rest.
We tried encryption before and it broke our applications. What's different?
Most encryption failures happen when key management is deployed separately from existing identity infrastructure. PK Protect deploys key access through Microsoft Entra or Active Directory. Authorized users and applications open encrypted files transparently, the same way they open any other file. Every evaluation includes a scoped POV that validates your specific workflows before production deployment. If a workflow breaks in the POV, you find out before it becomes your IT team's problem.
Next Step

See what's unencrypted in your environment, and what closing it actually takes.

Every evaluation is scoped to your specific environment and workflows. If PK Protect can't meet your use cases in the POV, you'll know before you've committed to anything.

Book a Discovery Call →

No commitment. Scoped to your environment. You set the success criteria.