Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

We use it for our AAA authentication through Active Directory. We also use it a lot to verify command line history.

We have ISE in the data center environment with redundancy, and we use it for authentication for all our devices. We have access to our third-party vendors, and for the new projects, we all use ISE. It's an awesome enterprise product for on-premises or for cloud-based deployments.

The integration of ISE with Active Directory has really been a big plus for us.

I've found two features to be the most valuable. One would be AAA reporting for historical analysis, showing what's been done and by whom. The second is the log for failures on Active Directory logins.

If I were to assess Cisco ISE for establishing trust for every access request, I would give it an eight or nine on a scale from one to ten.

Cybersecurity resilience has been very important to our organization and has been a big factor. We've had issues in the past, but one of the things I like about ISE is its logging features. Security-wise or information-wise, it really has been a powerful tool.

My impression of Cisco ISE for helping to support an organization across a distributed network is that it's invaluable. It's a monster tool; we don't even touch on all the features that it offers, but the few that we do use are extremely strong and very user-friendly.

On the network services devices, when you click on filter, the filter comes up. However, when I search and want to click on something it defaults back to the main page. I keep having an issue with that, and I'm not doing anything wrong.

I've been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for about six to seven years.

I've had no issues with stability.

We've actually scaled before and have never had an issue.

I've used technical support only once and would give them an eight out of ten.

We previously used ACS.

The return on investment we have seen is related to time in terms of troubleshooting. The logs, such as the security logs, inform us of the issues that people have had. ISE has been very instrumental in helping isolate those issues. We've seen a lot of cost savings because we don't have to pay an IT person to waste time doing something that should be instantaneous.

If you are a leader who wants to build more resilience within your organization, I would advise you to follow what they're doing at ISE.

If you're evaluating Cisco ISE, do an apples-to-apples comparison. There are a lot of features, and ISE is a monster. If you use it the right way, I think that no other product will compare to it.

Our use case is managing access to network devices for IT as well as end-users. Making that seamless is the challenge we were looking to handle.

ISE made implementation and connecting things easy.

It does a good job of establishing trust for each access request, no matter the source. It's also very effective at helping with the distributed network and at securing access.

The UI and UX could be more seamless and easier to use.

I've been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for six years.

The stability of the solution is pretty good. I've only had a couple of issues.

I've never tried to scale it up.

We have it deployed in multiple locations with users across the US and Canada.

I have never used the technical support.

It's done the job that we put it in place to do.

It's mostly for authentication to our network for our end-users.

It's allowed us to create groups for different vendors and for employees in various groups in our company, without giving everyone access.

It has also given us a lot of extra security as the backbone of authentication for our VPN and wireless network.

The policy sets give us more granular groups for end-user access.

I've been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for five years.

The stability is really great. We haven't had any issues with it. We've had it for a long time. We ran an old version for three or four years without any issues.

From what I have read, the scalability seems good. We haven't had to deal much with that. We have two nodes and about 2,000 sessions going at once.

Technical support is very good. They've always been there to answer any questions, and if they don't know the answer they make sure to find someone who can give me the answer.

Positive

Cyber security resilience has been at the top of our list since 2020 because we had so many people working from home and that increased as time went on. That opened our eyes.

I was involved when we upgraded at the beginning of this year. It was pretty straightforward, although we reached out for outsourced help.

We used a CDW consultant.

For us, the return on investment is that it gives us easy ways to divide up our end-users for authentication, especially for our VPN.

The pricing seems fair. The licensing can be confusing, but it is still pretty good.

I was asked a couple of years ago, when we were having issues with ISE, if there were alternatives, and I said I didn't want to switch because we're so embedded in this solution already.

Talk to someone outside of Cisco too, if you're thinking about ISE. That way, you can get all the information.

We wanted to outsource some of our work because I only have two years of admin experience and another of our network engineers has about a year. This way, if the system goes down, we have a quick way to get it back up.

I would tell leaders who want to add cyber security resiliency to make sure they include team members who are involved and not just make decisions on their own.

We use it for the TACACS authentication, for administrator login to network devices, and the RADIUS service for VPN and wireless authentication.

Initially, we were looking for a single sign-on for administrators to log in to every network device, but we also wanted a good way to control remote user access for logging in. Later we started using it for VPN and wireless.

It gives us a better way to authenticate users. It helps us identify a user with their device to establish trust. When a remote user is trying to access network resources, we need to find out who they are and where they want to go and make an appropriate decision about where they can and cannot go.

Resilience in cyber security is very important. Without security, nothing else can happen.

The TACACS and RADIUS have been the most valuable features so far.

Cisco ISE has almost all the features we are looking for now, but sometimes the configuration, such as the conditions, is a little difficult to understand and not so easy to navigate.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for a few years.

It is stable.

They have resolved my issues, but sometimes they have been slow.

Positive

We used to use Cisco ACS and that evolved to Cisco ISE.

The initial deployment was not a process that was easy to understand. But after I completed it, looking back, I see it was reasonable. It's just hard to understand upfront. There is a steep learning curve.

I did the migration too late, so I couldn't do a direct migration and that meant I had to kind of rebuild it.

Security is something we need, but I don't think that there is a return on investment. It causes more delays to the regular workflow.

The Essentials licensing is reasonable, but I would like the Premier version to be perpetual instead of a subscription.

An idea we are looking into is associating it with the MAC address table, so that approved devices can log in to the more restricted network.

My advice is to attend training before going for it. Otherwise, it will not be easy to understand. Each product, from ACS to ISE, does similar things, but they do them in different ways.

I rate Cisco ISE a nine out of 10. If it could become a little bit easier to understand that would help.

We use it for network device administration and for user access.

It has really helped us when it comes to security. It has eliminated trust from our network architecture because, with the solution in place, you tell us who you are and, based on who you are, we give you access. The solution provides us with a platform to define our policies. Users get into our system based on those policies. That eliminates threats. If you are not who you say you are, it will block you completely from our network.

It integrates with the rest of our platform, like our firewall, and helps us a lot. It also does a good job establishing trust for every access request.

With the recent release of the solution, we had a bunch of bugs and we had to delay our deployment. Other than that, the solution is good.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for 10 years.

Cisco ISE has come a long way when it comes to stability. It's getting better.

It's very scalable. We have it deployed in two data centers, and we're managing about 10,000 endpoints.

TAC is very responsive whenever we call them.

Positive

Currently we have two solutions that do the same kinds of things. For our wireless infrastructure, we use Aruba, but for our wired access, we use ISE.

The ROI we have seen is because Cisco gives us what they promised us. They deliver. Our requirements are being met and that results in getting value for what we pay.

Since we have a complete Cisco portfolio, including an Enterprise Agreement, it's not simple for me to compare what we're paying with the prices of other platforms.

We evaluated other companies and what they each do differently and looked at what was the better fit for our requirements.

Cisco TAC is really good. Whenever we have issues, we know they are there and that they will help us out with troubleshooting. The support of the other companies we looked at is not that great.

When I compare it with Aruba ClearPass and other solutions out there, I prefer Cisco. Cisco is number-one for user access, managing devices, and for network devices.

We don't leverage Cisco ISE for application access. We have another solution for that.

Get some hands-on familiarity with it first. Do a PoC and get people who really know the solution to help you out during phase one before you deploy it.

We're using version 3.1, which is very stable. There have been a lot of improvements.

I like the automation of the collection of information.

We have only been deploying this version for three months. We haven’t had any issues, but we'll see how it goes. One of the issues that we used to have was with profiling because we're working with a service provider that uses a lot of bring your own devices. We haven't had any issues since we started using version 3.1.

I have been using this solution for over 12 years.

There are no stability issues with version 3.1.

It's stable. We deployed with a client in petroleum with about 200 users worldwide, and it was stable.

Setup wasn't easy, especially if you haven’t worked with it intensively. VM is a little bit easier. If you don't deploy ISE with correct policies, it will be difficult.

If you deploy it with the correct policies, it's a wonderful product. You don't need to attach anything like your firewalls or creating rules.

ISE has always been expensive compared to other products in terms of what it does on a user level. I haven't had a client who didn't say that ISE wasn't expensive. I’ve had an issue where I was just selling four boxes, and it was four million. It was a high-end box, and the client didn't take it. They end up going with VM.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

It's one of the more difficult products to deploy.

You can learn a lot about ISE from their training videos. I would suggest watching the videos before deploying the solution. They have created good videos for ISE, from version 1.3.

We are a partner with Cisco and am a part of an information security team that uses Cisco to provide security policy management via network, device and wireless access. 

Cisco offers automation, visibility, and control as well as third party integration capabilities.

I would like for the next release to be easier to implement and to limit its dependencies around ISE, Windows, the network as a whole, etc.

I have been using Cisco ISE for over six years.

This is a very stable solution with many integrations.

Cisco's scalability depends on the design - small deployments are not scalable.

Cisco support is good.

This solution is a bit more complex to set up than in comparison to other options - it can take anywhere from two to five months depending on the use case.

The price for Cisco ISE itself is very low, however, Cisco professional services are quite expensive. Subscription amount is dependent on number of users.

We looked at Forescout which is more user-friendly but they have a very vulnerable network.

This is a good solution for security teams. If you do not have a security team, I would not recommend this product. 

Overall, I would rate Cisco a seven out of ten.

The solution is used for controlled access in the network, like if you want to restrict access.

The solution is deployed on-prem. I am an integrator of this solution.

The best features are the scalability and the license structure. The license structure is like a tier. If a customer doesn't actually want the highest features, then they can just start with the basic license package and upgrade it if their network is growing. For the smaller customers, they can start with the smaller plans and so on. If you have a financial customer or banking customer, they can go for the full features, and if it's not that critical, the customer can get the basic license package and implement that.

The licensing documentation needs to be better. We found some old documents describing the license names, like the Base license and Apex license. Cisco used both names. We have found that they changed the Advantage license and Premier License. If someone misunderstands that, they might end up with a hassle. I don't know if it's possible or not for Cisco to remove the older documents from the official website.

We have been working with this solution for more than two years.

We were using two solutions on Cisco's network, so we had a few ISE plans in that network.

The solution is stable. We have maybe 4,000 users for the Next solution.

We haven't used technical support very much, but in general, Cisco's support is always responsive.

Initial setup was straightforward from our point of view because we have engineers who did that, so of course it was not an issue with us.

The accesses took maybe three or four months to complete, but the Next part took about three weeks.

For deployment and maintenance, the team was average sized. You need to follow the correct documents for deployment. There can be misunderstandings if you use old documentation.

The licensing is subscription-based and based on the user account.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

I would recommend this solution.

If someone is looking for a concrete solution to control the access, then ISE is a better solution.