Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

We mainly use it for endpoint security.

Cisco ISE has made our network more secure. 

It has saved the time of our security team. I can't say how much time it has saved because I'm on the network side, but I'd imagine it has saved quite a bit of time. It lets them sleep better at night.

It does a good job of securing our infrastructure from end to end so that we can detect and remediate threats, but I don't have a similar product to compare.

It hasn't helped to consolidate any tools. The customer is in the process of migrating from their current ACS to ISE. When they've done that, we'll consolidate that piece. This consolidation would provide a single pane of management versus multiple tools.

I'd imagine it has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience, but the security team would know more about it.

The ability to allow or deny hosts onto the network is valuable. It provides great security to the network environment.

It could be more intuitive in terms of how to configure the policies.

I've been using Cisco ISE for four years.

It's very stable.

It's very scalable. We have deployed it globally.

Their support is good. I'd rate them a seven out of ten.

We didn't use any other solution previously. We went for Cisco ISE because we're a Cisco shop. It helps to have one vendor for network management and security.

Cisco's Professional services did the installation. I wasn't involved in its installation, but they did a pretty good job.

I'd imagine we have seen an ROI, but I'm not involved in the pricing or purchasing. The security it provides gives peace of mind. That's a good return.

My advice would be to do an evaluation of the product and purchase it.

I'd rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.

We use it for Community WiFi and TACACS authentication. It is service provider authentication, both for the core infrastructure and Community WiFi.

We were looking to solve captive portal and centralized authentication with Cisco ISE.

It has allowed us to pull in multiple authentication databases, then centralize them into a captive portal system.

It is important for our organization that the solution considers all resources to be external. It treats them with minimum trust.

Integration is a big factor. That has really been the driving force behind it.

Documentation is probably the worst part of the software.

I have been using it for about five years.

It is very stable. I would rate the stability as 10 out of 10.

We don't use its scalability. I would rate it as five out of 10.

The technical support is good. I would rate them as six out of 10.

Neutral

We previously used an open-source solution. We switched for vendor support and scalability.

We don't monetize this solution.

It is fair.

We did not evaluate other options.

It is worth checking out the integration that it provides. It is a strong platform.

Cybersecurity resilience has not been that important for our organization.

I would rate ISE as eight out of 10. It does exactly what it is supposed to do without much issue.

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.

I use it for licensing and profiling. It's like a "traffic cop." It's an endpoint user migration tool. It's also a TACACS server. It depends on what I'm using it for at the moment.

For the applications it's authentication and then authorization into the network. It's the networks you're on and what AD gives you. Your profile is based in AD or an LDAP server. ISE talks to those two servers and says, "What groups do you belong to, and should you have access to those roles?" With ISE, if AD says you can have it, then go for it.

I use it in big campus environments, anywhere that needs authentication and authorization to work with AD. It's a great tool for that, if you want to profile your network and you want to secure your network inside. We're not talking about firewalls but about what the tool can do for you, what it's designed for.

It has improved internal security, in-to-out, out-to-in. Without ISE, you can't posture or profile your network. Authorizations, authentications. ISE is not the only product that can do it, but it's a great tool.

Among the most valuable features is TACACS. Also, the rules and logging, but TAC is just as easy. Cisco TAC is great.

The area where things could be improved is education. It's complicated to deploy initially because you have to know what you're getting into. That's true with any customer. I don't know them so I have to learn about them. I have to figure it out, but there are very limited windows to do that. If a customer's going to hire you, you are the professional. You should know this already. You should come in with a base knowledge of what you need to do and, after that, grow with the customer. More education is how it can be improved.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) since 2016. I usually come into an environment after everything is there already. Customers bring me in to fix things that are broken.

The stability of the solution depends on how you scale it. If you have set it up properly, it will be great. If you put all your eggs in one basket, in one part of the network, and that goes down, then you have lost everything.

It's scalable. It can grow with your network. You can create new nodes or move everything from local to the cloud. It's easy to spin up a VM, so you can put it on a VM real quick and be done within a couple of days. But you have to know what you're doing. You can't just do it with the assumption that you can copy and just redeploy it. ISE doesn't work like that. It has to be done properly.

Cisco's TAC is excellent. Cisco always has great support.

Positive

I previously used the older versions of the hardware that were the original predecessors to ISE.

The deployment model for ISE depends on the customer: where their data centers are, what they can afford, and what type of maintenance agreements they have with Cisco's support. Are they on a VM or a physical device? Deployment depends on what we are trying to do and the environment.

In terms of establishing trust for every access request, trust is only as good as the rules and definitions you build. Without that, you need not only to trust the device, you need the trust of the customer too. That's important.

Trust is only eliminated when a customer wants the rules loosened. When the customer says, "This is too difficult, you're making it too hard," that is when exposure happens, things start collapsing, and there are breaches. You can't give the customer everything they want, because they don't know the consequences. You have to educate them. They need to know that the inconvenience of hitting "enter" to log in, and having it take three seconds or five seconds is because you'd rather have the machine and the network think before they let you on the network. A lot of times a customer will say, "If I'm hitting enter and it's not bringing me to where I need to be, then this is not a good solution." You have to educate them.

The solution is like an iPad that someone set up for you. If they didn't do a good job setting it up, you're going to rate the tool as bad. A lot of times, I come in and it's already done and I have to fix the problems. There are times that I do create it from scratch and it works really well. 

I primarily use ISE for segregating identities, IP addresses, and ports.

ISE's most valuable feature is integration between IT and OTs.

There are still some bugs in ISE that need to be worked out.

I've been working with Cisco ISE for three years.

ISE is stable.

ISE is scalable.

Cisco's tech support could be improved.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Regardless of your industry, I would recommend Cisco ISE if you want good identity management. I would rate this solution seven out of ten.