Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

Our company doesn't use Cisco ISE internally. We act as the solution reseller. Our business model is set up to provide a network-based approach for adaptable, trusted access to our clients. We provide our clients with intelligent, integrated protection through intent-based policy and compliance solutions.

We found that the most valuable features associated with this tool are posture assessment, policy management, VLAN assignments, guest assignment, and BYOD services. In addition to these services, the Cisco IOS software switch configuration feature is another very valuable aspect of the policy and compliance solution.

There are issues with respect to the posture assessment function. It's been observed that customers are not receiving total access to the network because the assessment agent is glitchy and malfunctions from time-to-time. I would like to see refining of the compliance assessment and adding more detailed compliance of endpoints on the user end.

We have also had to deal with some cache update issues in conjunction with Cisco's tech support team. Unfortunately, they had trouble providing suitable solutions within specific and desirable time frames.

The next release should offer more inter-operability, increased cross-integration functionality. 

We are currently experiencing stability issues with this solution.

Technical support needs improvement. There were times when my engineers had to talk to a number of different Cisco tech engineers explaining things over and over again. If their tech support has to escalate an issue our support staff is required to mediate which of course disturbs workflows.

The setup requires proper planning. We approach every customer interaction strategically taking into account the complete project scope. It's our job to understand the customer's expectations and requirements for deployment.

Initially, the setup is a bit tough with respect to the graphic user interface (GUI) tool. Cisco ISE has proven to be a bit complex as well.

The solution is sufficient and seems to require little to no maintenance from the client side. Maintenance is always in proportion to the client's needs and product deployment. For instance when we are managing two Cisco ISE boxes with two onsite engineers. As capacity grows obviously we need more engineers; it's not a 1-to-1 relationship but we always take a minimum of two certified engineers qualified to manage Cisco ISE.

I would give this solution a rating of 7 out of 10.

We are a reseller of Cisco ISE. 

So far we have had no complaints from customers. No major complaints in terms of ISE. They do complain obviously if the ISE service stops working. Normally that happens if there's a server flaw or some problem at the data center somewhere. 

There can more integration between the wireless controller management and ISE. Consolidation or integration of the controller and ISE dashboards would be great. It's not that bad but would make for simplified support if it could be combined into one dashboard.

It's very stable. We have it in on a big car rental company. We manage and we support the Cisco ISE platform for them. It's very stable and it adds a lot of value to the network.

In terms of scalability, you need to factor in your licenses. With a virtual platform, the scalability is more than sufficient. We have over one thousand users. 

We've got two engineers that look after the ISE environment.

We have emailed tech before and their support has been very good.

The initial setup was straightforward. The time it takes to implement depends from customer to customer. The most time-consuming aspect is sitting with the customer and planning out the policies and how they understand Cisco ISE. On average, with the planning sessions with the customer and the installation of ISE, it takes approximately five days.

The licensing is too expensive. There is more complexity on the wifi environment, especially with Cisco DNA versus Cisco ONE licensing. As far as the ISE licensing is concerned, it's pretty straightforward. We normally follow the ordering guide which is quite detailed, so there's no problem there.

The advice that I would give someone considering this solution is to understand the licensing. From a design perspective, we refer to the ordering guide quite frequently. The most important thing is to have a technical planning session with the customer. A lot of the time the customer doesn't really know what they want and if you don't have that upfront planning and discussion with the customer, the deployment can take much longer.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

Our primary use case is to grant access to users, we deploy the bring your own device policy.

Visitors can be granted access to the wifi network using their cellphones, notebooks or tablets in a very easy way. The ease of accessibility that anyone can have to the network is very quick and is a big improvement for our network.

The flexibility to grant anyone access to the network easily and in a secure way is its most valuable feature.

There should be an easier way to do the upgrades. Customers were having issues going from one version to the next. There are a lot of steps to get to the next version from the previous version which ends up being a bit of the headache with the upgrade. 

It's very stable. We have around 200 users and only four people are required for maintenance. 

As Cisco partners, the point is that we provide our own support. We prefer our own engineers to be ready to support the solution to provide the service to our customers.

We have seen ROI from using this solution. 

We plan to increase usage by around 20 to 30%.

It gives people the peace of mind that they have the possibility to grant access to the people that visit their premises and ensures that they are working in a safe environment that is pure and clear when they use the posture services of the solution.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

We use this solution to protect the network especially when someone brings their own device and to lock out access to anybody connecting to the network. Also to make sure that the people connect to the correct VLAN. So, mainly for security wifi access so that when people want to connect to our wifi they have to log in using their credentials.

We give guests limited access to the internet when they come in so that access has been useful. Previously, we just used to give them the APN key which they would leave with. Now, we give them credentials to use that are for a limited period of time.

It is stable. Any time we found an issue we would get in touch with the reseller to help fix it. Then they tell us where the problem is and we'll know where to look. 

It is scalable. We have around 350 users. We required two staff members for maintenance but they don't have enough knowledge so we have to reach out externally for more help. 

Their technical support has been good. They have been responsive every time we have an issue. They get logs, check and then give us feedback of which corrections to do.

The initial setup was complex. We had to engage an expert. When we rolled it out we would find challenges and then we would have to find a way of fixing those challenges. Out of  nowhere, it would lock out all users. Then we discovered that no, the password had expired for the service account. We needed to make it none expiry.

Deployment took about a month. We had to do project planning, discuss the plan with the team, and by the end, it was a month.

We used a reseller for the implementation and we had a good experience with them. 

If you go directly with Cisco for the implementation it's very, very expensive.

We also looked at Aruba.

It's a good product but it requires technical support and knowledge otherwise it will be difficult to manage and run it. It requires somebody to be configuring issues. You need protection as you advance in the usage but it's a good product. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. In order to make it a ten, it should be more user-friendly. You need somebody who is knowledgeable about it to use it. It's not easy to use. We have to rely heavily on technical support.

It's a network access manager.

After the product was installed, no one could access the secure connection network. In order for any laptop or any endpoint device to attach to my network, it needs to be authorized or be certified to be connected.

It has many valuable features. 

It has many complications from the administration perspective, it's not easy to learn. Not like other solutions that are very friendly and easy to go through. It needs to be more user-friendly. We'll see the same name on more than one tab so we need to realize why that name is there or why only the main tab is not like the other. I cannot believe that Cisco is the best case of security integration however it is easier to implement.

They are good at integration, I do not expect more from them in that regard. They could think about developing VXLAN. They have LDN switches, we need to get into contextual switches, not catalyst switches. Normal switches. I wish they could explore developing more VXLAN options.

Stability is not something absolute. 

Scalability is good. We have 60,000 users. 

Their technical support isn't good. 

The initial setup took four to six hours to do. The image between six, seven GB, is a huge image, huge process, and it takes too much time. If somebody has a solution of five, four pieces you need to re-image one or you need to incorporate the solution. It will take days to upgrade the solution. It's very complicated. The deployment will take an entire day. And if you have a complication it can take two days because of the complexity. 

We are a big organization and we can arrange for licenses because we are a big customer. We have an agreement for the security license. Licenses aren't an issue for us. We pay for licenses every five years or six years.

I would rate this solution a 7.5 out of ten. To make it a ten they should have more people on tech support. They need to invest more in the product. It's a good product. They should just work on tech support. More support for the customer. It's not that easy to get somebody to understand this product. I have had some issues with tech before for the solution. One of them brought the solution down due to some of his activity. They need to hugely invest in their tech support. 

We use it to aid the tools that we make and to sponsor and get flow.

We distribute internet access to guests. It's the product to our environment.

The profiling option is the most valuable feature. 

They should improve the upgrades. It's not easy to upgrade the solution. 

It's stable. 

It is scalable because we use a network load balancer at the front of the PSN. It can be extended as we want to multiply. It's scalable to our environment. We have around 8,000 users and we are planning to expand it. 

I opened some tickets with them and I had no problems. They are engineers from India and the U.S and they perform well.

The initial setup was complex. The deployment took around one year. 

We used an integrator for the deployment. They didn't know a lot about the solution so we had to learn about it ourselves and helped them.

We have seen ROI from this solution. 

We use a virtual machine so in terms of pricing, we can extend it as much as we need. The licensing; we had to renew twice and in my opinion, it's good.

We also looked at ForeScout but we preferred Cisco ISE. 

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten. 

We use this solution to authenticate the domain users and if someone is not the domain user to make them a guest.

Before, our port would be wide open, anyone could come to the network and put their laptop into the port or any device and they would be able to get the IP. Now, if someone tries to connect to our network through an IU port or internet, they will not be able to access it. Another way this solution has improved our organization is that when we integrate this with our OpenGate server we are able to identify and isolate the machine that is infected, or that is going to be infected.

Plus, we had control on which device we can block in real-time and white list, or according to the MAC address, we can send this device to get an assigned IP from a special VLAN.

The identification with McAfee DHL is the most valuable feature. It gives us full visibility to see if there's any malware or malicious activity going on in the network and will then isolate the device.

Since we have started, we struggled a lot to implement this solution into our network, and we opened a case a couple of times. Up until this point, nothing else needs to be improved with this product.

Stability is very good. We haven't faced any issues and there aren't any bugs. 

We currently have around 400 users and we only need two staff members for maintenance. It is being used extensively because all of the users are dependent on it. If the ISE is down no one will be able to authenticate.

Technical support is very good because, on the user phase, it shows who was on the call with us and who helped us. 

The initial setup was easy. It took around one month. We did the installation part within half an hour to two hours but we found a couple of issues so we raised a case and once everything was resolved it was a month in total. 

We used an integrator. We had a good experience with them because we have already worked with them in the past couple of years

We researched this solution and found that it fulfills all of our requirements so we didn't look into any other solutions.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

I would advise someone considering this solution not to enable it with MAC. They are going to be in a very bad state after enabling this with MAC because if you do it is going to isolate so many devices which do not comply with the policy.

My primary use case for this solution is as a server for my networking devices.

We have multiple metal devices from different places that use management, so we need to know who would be accessing all those devices and what changes are being done to those metal devices. With Cisco ISE we have visibility of all the changes happening on those devices.

The authorization feature is the most valuable feature. 

Support and integration for the active devices needs to be worked on. Their features mainly work well with Mac devices. If we use an HP the Mac functionalities may no longer be able to deliver.

It's not very stable. Product-wise, in terms of performance and in terms of stability, I don't experience any challenges.

It's highly scalable but it's challenging to scale-up non-Cisco products. We currently have around 50 users and 11 employees monitoring the device. We don't have any plans to increase usage. 

Their technical support is pretty good. They have a good database and knowledge space regarding this solution. You'll get the support that you need. 

We are also currently using ForeScout for another feature but we are facing multiple challenges with ForeScout implementation.

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment and negotiating time depends on your network infrastructure and what kind of environment you have.

You should have a fair understanding of the kubernetes that have been used in their infrastructure.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.