Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

I utilize Cisco ISE to access the switches on our network for monitoring configurations.

Using Cisco ISE, we are able to control access to our networks, ensuring that only authorized individuals have access to appropriate devices. Additionally, we can restrict access to devices that should be off-limits to them.

Cisco ISE helps free up 50 percent of our IT staff's time, allowing them to work on other projects. It provides quick access when available, but delays occur when we have to wait for access to be granted.

Cisco ISE helps consolidate our tools, eliminating the need to worry about multiple passwords for the various devices in our environments by using a single password key.

The consolidation of tools makes it easy for me to access and complete my work. It also facilitates finding a solution for any problem I may encounter with the switch.

Cisco ISE has enhanced our organization's cybersecurity resilience by providing us with control over device access.

It would be helpful for us to know what needs to be deployed, configured, and what changes we need to make to our devices when we don't receive the specific login which is an indication of a lack of connection or incorrect configuration.

I have been using Cisco ISE for one and a half years.

Cisco ISE has consistently performed as expected, and we have not experienced any stability issues.

Assisting a larger number of users in gaining access and guiding them through the process of getting on Cisco ISE has been seamless.

Cisco support is helpful, and they have always been responsive whenever we needed assistance.

I rate Cisco ISE a nine out of ten.

From a user's perspective, Cisco ISE is seamless. It is extremely helpful as it reduces the amount of work required to access and control device permissions.

Our organization is a major Cisco partner, and it is logical for us to increasingly integrate Cisco products into our environment.

Cisco ISE is on the back end, and all our policies and security are on it. DNS centers and all our network backbone is integrated into Cisco ISE. So, the solution is pretty critical for us.

Cisco ISE has helped improve our organization security-wise.

Cisco ISE integrates with everything else. It forms our security and identity backbone, and all our authentication goes through Cisco ISE. That's why the solution is so important to us.

Troubleshooting and multi-ISE can be challenging with the solution.

My organization has been using Cisco ISE since 2018.

Once configured properly, Cisco ISE shows good stability.

Cisco's TAC is good. Cisco support, in general, is too layered these days. Often we have to repeat the same thing over and over to the TAC guys, which is a bit frustrating. Cisco's TAC needs to be a bit better.

Neutral

Cisco ISE's deployment can take weeks, months, or years depending on how rigidly you adhere to the guidelines and how good your existing infrastructure is.

We have seen a return on investment with Cisco ISE from a security point of view.

Cisco ISE's licensing can get pricey.

Sometimes, the Cisco guys disagree about it, but other than that, the Cisco guidelines are clear and concise enough.

Cisco ISE helps to secure our infrastructure from end to end so we can detect and remediate threats. The solution does what it's supposed to do.

Cisco ISE has saved a little time for our organization.

Since Cisco ISE is a more robust solution, it has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience.

Before implementing Cisco ISE, you should look into it in-depth on how it can be used, how it can be integrated with existing tools, and how your staff can be trained to troubleshoot it. The solution has its pitfalls, and when it breaks, it can break heavily. So be aware before you deploy it.

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

The company's use case for Cisco ISE is switch access. I'm from the high-performance compute side. I'm not the back office IT. I'm what they call GSIT. Their use cases are different but very similar.

On our side, Cisco ISE has improved cybersecurity resilience. The company uses it for global WAN and other things. We haven't had any issues.

For me, the TACACS feature is the most valuable. I have also used Cisco ISE with LDAP, not with Active Directory. That works for me because I prefer LDAP versus Active Directory.

The templates could be better. When you have to do certs, especially with X.500 certs, it isn't very intuitive.

I've been using Cisco ISE since 2011.

After I set it and forget it, upgrading Cisco ISE is the only thing to do.

I've never had a problem with Cisco. Cisco has always scaled well, so it's pretty good.

Initially, it wasn't good, but once I found the right TAC person, it was fine. I had to probably get level three or above, and then I had to get a software developer because the certs didn't initially work properly to give you a special code. I'd rate their support a nine out of ten.

Positive

I used OpenRADIUS before. That was open source. I switched because I'm the support for everything. It was easy to support with Cisco ISE.

Role-based access is easy to do with Cisco ISE versus OpenRADIUS. That's because OpenRADIUS is something you have to manage yourself. You have to manage the certs and other things. You have to define the roles yourself for special read access and for certain groups and multi-groups.

The only thing I didn't like at the beginning was that Cisco ISE was limited to how many groups you could use. That problem has been fixed. I haven't run into that problem.

The initial setup was complex. The main part was the certs, especially the X.500 certs with LDAP. Azure Directory is a little bit smoother, but I prefer LDAP.

It's deployed for internal switch access. It's purely for switch access and role-based access.

I deployed it myself.

We've seen an ROI.

I get very good pricing from Cisco, so I don't have a problem with that. I also don't have a problem with licensing because we get enterprise or global licensing.

It hasn't helped to free up our IT staff. Our IT staff is already very limited anyway. We've always worked smart and don't work where we don't have to work. For example, in 2019, we were more than 60. There are 14 of us now, and we still do the same amount of work. Cisco ISE hasn't contributed to less workload. We do it with automation. We have a lot of Linux, so we do automation on all of our stuff. 

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

We are on-prem at twelve separate sites with one main node.

We utilize Cisco ISE for authenticating both our employees and residents at our senior care center. We authenticate them either against LDAP or our network.

Cisco ISE provides us with enhanced network access control, allowing us to manage the VLAN assignments for both our residents and employees. Additionally, Cisco ISE enables us to exercise control over the devices permitted to connect to our network.

I am not aware of the extent to which we leverage Cisco ISE to remediate threats, but it serves as our first line of defense for access. It has been extremely beneficial. Our clientele consists of senior residents, and having some level of control over the devices they connect to the network has had a significant impact. 

Cisco ISE has helped to free up the time of our IT team for other projects.

Sometimes, there are instances when Cisco ISE simply fails to function without any apparent reason, and regardless of the investigation we undertake, the logs indicate that everything is functioning properly, making it somewhat inexplicable. However, after a while, it spontaneously begins functioning again. Therefore, I believe it is not a widespread problem, but when it does occur, it can be quite frustrating.

The support specifically for Cisco ISE has room for improvement.

I have been using Cisco ISE for two years, and the company has been utilizing the solution for ten years.

For the most part, Cisco ISE is stable, good, and functional. However, when it fails, we are left clueless as to the reason behind it, and that's the frustrating aspect.

Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well. However, we have encountered issues while updating to the latest version. It is a significant endeavor due to the extensive scope of our deployment. Nevertheless, I believe this challenge is not unique to us; it appears to be primarily related to the scale of the deployment. Currently, we have nearly 15,000 devices.

The times I've had to contact technical support for Cisco ISE, the experience has been somewhat unsatisfactory. I get the feeling that, at least on the surface, they perform tasks that I can do myself, such as reviewing the logs and identifying the issues. Moreover, given the integration of Cisco ISE with various network components, it's difficult to confine troubleshooting solely to that aspect. Therefore, I desire improved support specifically for Cisco ISE. I would rate the support for Cisco ISE as a six out of ten, whereas for other products in their portfolio, it would receive a nine out of ten.

Neutral

I am not aware of the current price for Cisco ISE, but considering it is a Cisco product, it is likely to be quite high. However, I do not have control over the checkbook.

We evaluated Aruba ClearPass, which was something we considered. However, since we are committed to Cisco throughout our infrastructure, we didn't believe it was worthwhile to replace it with another solution without being certain that it would be better than Cisco ISE.

Aruba ClearPass had a slightly better reputation among the people we surveyed in our industry. We frequently compared it to how college campuses manage their systems because our use case is very similar. In terms of functionality, I believe it was mostly the same. The key difference seemed to be the level of stability.

I give Cisco ISE an eight out of ten. Without knowledge of how the other implementations or competing offerings function, I believe Cisco ISE performs admirably in its intended role. Moreover, I am aware that without it, we would encounter significantly greater challenges. Therefore, I consider it to be great.

Our organization utilizes Cisco products extensively, which, in my opinion, is the reason behind the organization's decision to choose Cisco ISE.

I believe we would have a much more open network if it weren't for Cisco ISE. We would be restricted to only using PSKs, and we wouldn't have a true understanding of what our residents are connecting to the network. I think that's likely the most significant aspect of the implementation.

Our main use case right now is TACACS for device administration and authentication, as well as for user authentication on the network: wireless authentication, 802.1X, and wired authentication too, for RADIUS.

The way Cisco ISE has improved our organization is [by] making sure that we have secured our network. It's making sure that if somebody comes into the office who [possibly] shouldn't be there, and they plug a computer in or try to hit our WiFi, that we know, based on the criteria we've set up, that this person should have access. They've passed all the tests we've set up to make sure that they're not a bad actor or somebody who shouldn't be on the network.

ISE can, a lot of times, be the first stop for us to troubleshoot user errors or user issues. If you start your security posture by assuming there's no trust for a device, you're going to make sure that ISE is validating the device from the ground up. It's not just assuming that something has access, it's making sure it goes through the full process to gain access to your network.

ISE has definitely helped us across a distributed network, because you have a central way of authenticating everybody. It could be switches across different vendors, it could be different switch models—whether a Cisco Catalyst 9000 or a 2960—you can make sure, although these might be different devices, that the authentication process is going to be the same for the users. You have that peace of mind that no matter where somebody's plugging in, or what AP they're authenticating to, it's going to follow the same security guidelines, the same authentication process, to be granted network access.

The most valuable features for us are ensuring that we have the right people logging in to the network as well as protecting our device configuration. If somebody goes in to make a configuration adjustment, we need to make sure it's the right person, that they have the right access, and that we have validated that.

When we use ISE, one of the helpful things is that I can go through the dashboard and get every step along the way of how a device was authenticated. If it's failing, why did it fail? Why is it unauthorized? If there's an error, what is the error and how can I fix that error? If it's something that, if they should be passing, why are they failing?

For device administration, like logging in to a switch or a router, we can see all the commands that people have put in and who made changes. If we need to fix something—a bad command, or somebody put something in that pulls a device out of what we consider our compliance—we can fix that. 

From an administrator perspective we can look at "Why did you make this change?" and figure out how we don't break something in the future, if it was something that did cause an outage. 

And when it comes to things like wireless, we can see who is hitting the network, who is hitting a corporate SSID, or a guest SSID. Are they failing? What errors are you seeing along the way?

A lot of people tell you the hardware requirements for ISE are pretty substantial. If you're running a virtual environment, you're going to be dedicating quite a bit of resources to an ISE VM. That is something that could be worked on.

The upgrade process is not very simple. It's pretty time-consuming. If you follow it step by step you're probably going to have a good time, but there are still a lot of things that could be a lot more user-friendly from an administrator's perspective. [They could be] easing a lot of the issues that people have. Instead of just saying the best practice is to migrate to new nodes [what would be helpful] would be to make that upgrade process easier.

The UI is a lot nicer in 3.0. It's pretty slow, but for the most part, it's easy to find what you're looking for, especially things like RADIUS live logs, TACACS live logs. From a troubleshooting perspective, it's really nice finding stuff. For setting up policies, from that perspective, it could be a little bit better looking.

I've been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for about five years, myself. My company has been using it for longer than that.

The stability for our virtual machines is good if you follow the best practice and give it the reservations the virtual machines need, and you're making sure that you're following how many recommended devices are going to be authenticating to it. We don't have stability issues with ISE.

The scalability has been fine for us. We're actually in the process of possibly deploying more PSN (Policy Service) Nodes, so we'll see if that helps. But scalability hasn't been an issue. I don't think we're running into device count limitations or VM performance [issues].

We're around the 600-700 mark in terms of the number of devices in our company.

Support has been pretty helpful when we've needed it. We haven't had too many issues where I was asking for an escalation immediately or sweating profusely because it's not working. I can't say anything bad about support, but I don't have enough experience to give a really substantial answer.

Positive

I did not deploy ISE. We had a partner who helped us deploy it.

I don't know what the investment was, because I'm not involved in the pricing aspect of it. But there's no way for us to run a secure, reliable, user access or device administration access without something like ISE. The return on the investment, I think, is great. It's integral to our network so I don't know what we would do without ISE.

The licensing model is pretty straightforward. There are some changes from [version] 2.x going up to 3.0 and switching to the Smart Licensing. But if you have somebody who can explain it to you, so that you know that when you're upgrading you're not losing functionality, or you're not putting yourself in a position where the license count you're used to having can go away; as long as that's set up, it's fine.

I have used Aruba ClearPass in the past. They're pretty comparable. If I'm going to be honest, I think ClearPass has a better user interface and some of the things are laid out a little bit better. But when ISE is up and running, it's more reliable, it's more stable. You just have to get it to that point and then it's a really nice product that I like using.

In terms of eliminating trust from network architecture, ISE can do so when it's implemented correctly. There are still certain functions of ISE where you have to be diligent in making sure that if a user is plugging into a network port, that that port is set up to use ISE for authentication. It's kind of a two-way street. It's a great tool, but you have to set it up correctly. You have to make sure that it's doing what you've intended it to do. When you do that, it's great for that. We don't have any issues with that and it's definitely an integral part of our network.

The advice I would give people is to decide what you are looking for in terms of your AAA. Are you looking for a secure way to authenticate VPN users, users logging in for WiFi, for wired access? Something I don't use at my organization is the Guest Portal, but I know ISE has a pretty considerable catalog for deploying guest portals, for device onboarding, and posture assessment. If those are all the things you're looking for, the features, I would definitely recommend ISE.

The primary use cases include customer environments, BYOD, posture assessment, and dot1x for wireless and wired networks.

I'm customer-focused, and for my customers, Cisco ISE has enabled them to deploy secure wireless and secure wired networks and gave them a lot of flexibility to do security enforcement.

The posture assessment is a valuable feature because of the ability to do assessments on the clients before they connect to the network.

The guests' BYOD portal and onboarding are feature-rich and fairly straightforward and easy to set up.

From a zero-trust standpoint, it is critical that Cisco ISE considers all resources to be external because, in essence, we don't want to allow anybody on the network that hasn't been verified. Even when they're on the network, we want to make sure that they have the least amount of privileges to do their job.

Cisco ISE hasn't eliminated trust, but it's definitely helped us to migrate more toward zero-trust network environments. It helped us to have a much better security posture overall to help eliminate threats and also give visibility into the response.

ISE is generally deployed as a distributed environment, and it makes it easier to have local resources across the distributed environment so that you're not dependent on always-on access to a data center. In case you lose your internet connection or lose an MPLS connection, you can still have a certain amount of security control at the distributed location.

As far as securing access to applications go, with the posture assessment you get a lot more visibility into the applications on the client when you deploy it and a lot more control over enforcing connectivity in the network, especially with secure group access.

When I work with customers to do my knowledge transfer, they're really overwhelmed with the navigation of the product and the number of things you can do with it. From a user interface standpoint, Cisco could focus on making certain tasks a bit more guided and easier for customers to walk through. That is, a user-friendly interface and streamlined workflows would be great.

I've been using Cisco ISE for about eight years.

I've had very few issues with stability and haven't run into any bugs.

It scales quite well. Essentially, you can scale up to about 500,000 users, and most of my customers are south of that.

I am familiar with ClearPass. I prefer ISE because most of the environments I'm dealing with are Cisco networks. Having the device administration based on TACACS+ is a plus, with it being a proprietary protocol. ISE definitely implements it better than other solutions. From a conceptual standpoint, ISE makes more sense.

ISE may be a bit difficult for my customers because they're not used to it, but the reality is that the workflows make a lot more sense to me than they did with other solutions like ClearPass.

The first deployment I did was complex because I ran into the same thing my customers did. It's overwhelming at first to figure out because there are so many options and so many different use cases. It was tough to narrow it down to what was important and what could be added later.

However, after having done 30 or 40 deployments, it's now straightforward.

I've deployed the solution in a bunch of different environments. I have manufacturing customers with centralized management and monitoring, so the PAN and the MTS are in data centers that are separate but with PSMs deployed all across the network for the distributed model. There also are some, where everything's pretty much in a data center or is split across two data centers.

Licensing has gotten much simpler since Cisco moved to the DNA model because we just have the three tiers, but it could always stand to be improved upon.

I evaluated ClearPass.

To leaders who want to build more resilience within their organization, I would say that it's definitely worth moving toward a zero-trust environment. It's really a rebranding of an old concept of least privileged access, but the tools we have to implement it, such as Cisco ISE and firewalls, at the core and the ability to broker it out to the cloud as well, give us a lot more visibility and a lot more control over the traffic and our data, which is our biggest asset.

If you're evaluating the solution, pick two to three use cases, stick with those, and familiarize yourself with the solution. Try not to get overwhelmed with the interface, and don't try to see everything it can do and let it spin out of control; it's easy to do that. Just start with something you really need to implement and then worry about adding more features later on.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE at nine.

We were looking for secure network access.

It's important that the solution considers all resources to be external because we are introducing new endpoints to the environment every day. We want to make sure that endpoints are secured. In addition, we want to see what that endpoint is doing in our environments.

ISE has eliminated trust from our network architecture. It has changed the methodology of how we look at security. Instead of having everything open, now we know exactly what to open and what to trust.

SGTs are valuable because they make it easy to enforce policies, instead of pushing them across all the other platforms.

I would like to see them simplify the dashboard. It's very configurable, but, at the same time, it's not easy to maneuver through it. They should "Merakify" it.

The deployment is complex. I get that it's very configurable, but there is the challenge of how to get to certain things. You go to different places to get the same things done. There needs to be improvement to the GUI.

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

It's now way more stable than 2.0 was.

It's scalable, but we get back to the point that you have to deploy multiple nodes across the environment to get the bandwidth for larger environments.

TAC is pretty good. They're solid. The product has been out there for a little bit so that side of things is good.

Positive

We had ClearPass.

It's pretty good when it comes to supporting an organization across a distributed network but it's not easy to implement. It requires a lot of expertise. It requires a full understanding of your environment and the traffic flow.

Our clients have it in multiple locations. At the same time, there are multiple SSIDs on the wireless side and each SSID has a different function for a different group of users. It's not like there is just one set of policies. It has to be multiple policies and sometimes the policies cross each other when moving from one campus to another campus.

Deployment requires a minimum of two solid engineers. One can focus on the network side and the other one can focus on the ISE side.

The way you establish trust is that you first have to "untrust" everything and then you set your points and your profiles and, based on that, you build your policy.

It's damn expensive and the licensing is terrible. There are three different types of licenses: Essential, Advantage, and Premier, and each one of them has certain features. I work with the SLED accounts and it's not easy for customers to find the money. I'm trying to sell their product but, at the same time, to utilize the product fully they have to pay millions of dollars on the licensing alone. And it's software. It's not like I'm selling them hardware with hardware value. It's just software. The prices need to be brought down.

The majority of our clients are still using 2.7, while some have moved to 3.0 or 3.1. That's another issue with the licenses. If you have perpetual licenses on 2.7 and you upgrade to 3, you are forced to go with Essentials. That is one of the issues that I'm seeing with my clients now.

Go for it. It's a great solution. It's very configurable and you can tie your environment together from a wireless or from a wired side. I love the solution.

Cisco ISE is our network access control solution. We use it to prevent unwanted devices from connecting to our physical network. We also use it for wireless access control on the corporate network, but not on our guest internet network. That difference is because we have Cisco Meraki on the guest wireless.

The solution is in twin private data centers and we did virtual servers, not physical appliances. They're on our VMware platform.

Our business is the lending half of banking only. There are no ATMs or customers coming in with deposits or credit cards. It's a commercial lending operation. We don't have a lot of foot traffic into our locations from our customers. Some might say we're a little overly worried about our physical network, because we're pretty physically secure already. However, we occasionally do customer appreciation events in our locations, at which point there could be 100 people waltzing in and out of any one of our buildings. That's when the regulators say, "That's why you need security." Ultimately, if you let your guard down in the world of security, you're going to get attacked. So, like it or not, we have to button it up.

Cisco ISE definitely helped us pass the audit requirements we had. We're a type of federally chartered organization and we have a special regulator in the federal space. The need for network access control was born out of audit and penetration test findings. ISE is auditable and we send logs up to our SIEM for analysis.

The solution has also improved our trust situation. It's one of the many pieces that we needed to be buttoned up tight.

It does what it's supposed to. We use a certificate-based authentication method for corporate-managed devices. That means when a user walks in with their managed laptop and plugs it into the network, it chats with Cisco ISE in the background, allows it on the network, and away they go.

And when it comes to establishing trust for every access request, no matter where it comes from, it's effective. That's like a "pass/fail"  and it passes.

Our environment is a distributed network, across many locations. Cisco ISE runs in a pair of data centers for us: to each client, a primary and a secondary. The database keeps itself synchronized between the two data centers so if one data center is down, we can swing to the other for continuous service. It does its job.

A main issue is that the upgrade process, over time, is extraordinarily fragile. Repeatedly, over the past several years, when we've tried to upgrade our Cisco ISE implementation, the upgrade has broken it. Ultimately, we have then had to rebuild it because we need it. There are so many updates and, often, you can't go to a particular update unless you've done all of the updates leading up to it, although I don't think that was our issue.

If they could improve the upgrade process, that would make me sleep a lot better. It's almost like we need to have it pre-qualified before applying an update because our whole world hangs off of it. It is a "center of the known universe" implementation for us.

It is also an incredibly "nerdy" tool, one that is not really well documented for your everyday network and security engineers. It takes a village of specialists to keep something like this running. Cisco is definitely making some improvements in the user interface. It's a little more understandable and approachable. Even for the nerdiest of nerds, having what I call a "kissable baby face" makes it more usable. Cisco knows this and, from version 3 and up, they've been trying to improve the usability and it's getting better. It could use some work.

Not everything is a smart Windows or Mac OS device. We have Windows 10-based user laptops, almost exclusively, and there are some printers and phones and the like that are capable of either a certificate or other 802.1X conversation with Cisco ISE. From an engineering perspective, we just went "way-simple." We do MAC address bypass or MAB tables, which is administratively challenging.

Finally, I believe we've stretched it beyond its capabilities in attempting to make it a multi-client solution, more like a service provider implementation. It's really not architected for that yet. I think that's on the roadmap. This is what I refer to as a monolithic implementation. It is capable of servicing multiple Active Directories and saying, "I recognize this address range equals client X, and this address range equals client Y," and it can interrogate the appropriate Active Directory. But the way that we've implemented that, honestly, is a hack job. It's fully supported, but it's just not multi-client architected. If I had one message for Cisco, it would be: Please make this thing multi-client, or at least more affordable to do separate implementations that somehow get closer together. That's ultimately what multi-client is.

All our various clients are collectively involved with one another. Each of the five owners owns an equal share of the company and all profit and loss flows to each of the owners equitably. It's not that we don't have procurement relationships with one another. However, our regulator continues to believe that separating things is better. That way, if one of you gets taken down, the others aren't affected. Anytime that you have a product that is a type of monolithic implementation, it potentially could affect all of us.

For about six and a half years I worked for a cooperatively-owned service bureau, which is where I got the Cisco ISE experience on the service provider side. Now I'm on the customer side or the business side of how these technologies affect our environment, and how hard or how easy they are to integrate.

We've had Cisco ISE in production for about four years now. It was a three-year ramp getting it into production.

It works like a champ until you try to upgrade it, and then it becomes risky and fragile. I don't know whether that is because of the complexity of the architecture. We have what I would call a twin database environment. Where we're trying to keep two copies, at a great distance from one another, synchronized. One misstep and there it goes.

It is certainly scalable enough in our environment. We have between 3,000 and 4,000 managed nodes, not counting all of the extra stuff including every type of IOT thing you can imagine: printers, cameras, sensors, a security system. It also doesn't include phones, and we have a phone on every desk, whether there's a user there or not. 

When you initially think you've only got, say, 3,000 or 3,500 users, how do you get 15,000 devices on your network? But that's the sad reality these days. Everything is on the network. Every employee typically has three devices on the network at any given time: a phone, a tablet, and a computer. The numbers ratchet up quickly. 

The good news is that it's definitely scalable in our environment to handle 25,000 devices spread across between 150 to 200 locations, some of which are very remote.

It is a special class of nerds who know how to work with Cisco ISE, and that's true even inside of Cisco. We have used some third parties, Cisco authorized resellers and solution certified specialists, to deal with this, but that's a last resort. Those are the really expensive people for this because there is such a small community of people who are qualified in this product.

Because it's such a specialized skill, they are not as available as I would like.

Neutral

We did not have a previous solution.

We were nearly a 100 percent Cisco shop at the time that we selected the product. We had a couple of failed implementations when trying to get it installed. That was likely because we didn't hire the right expertise to assist. Everybody understands the components of it, but when you put it all together, it is just very scientifically complicated.

In our case, ROI wasn't really a consideration in going with Cisco ISE. It was a regulatory requirement.

It is fairly expensive and that's part of why we have implemented it in the type of "hack" that we did, to service multiple clients. It would be nice if it were less expensive.

Plan your deployment very carefully. Make sure that you really understand the licensing environment. That was a big surprise, not to my team, but to the end customers who were responsible for the budget for it. Everybody thinks "server-centric," and in this particular case, all of those devices that are being protected ultimately have to have appropriate licensing on the system. There was a lot of, "Oh, I didn't realize I had to buy that part." It's not your everyday product and the pricing model wasn't something people were super familiar with to begin with.

We've evaluated some other products since implementing this one. This is not your everyday tool.

The one thing that some of Cisco's competitors have done in this particular space, is to take this stuff to the public cloud. As long as you can do that securely, it is helpful. Maybe that would help in our world. I would love to subscribe to this as a service. In other words, we'd prefer that products like this, products that are that complex, be somebody else's problem and just subscribe to the outcome of them. I'd love this solution to be running in Cisco's world where the real expertise is.

People groan when they realize that they're going to have to do troubleshooting on Cisco ISE; even the nerdiest of nerds. But any product in this space would engender the same reaction. Trying to figure out how I prove that you're allowed to be on my network is not everybody's happy place. We all just want to set it and forget it.

The usability and the upgradability over time, for a product that is in such a critical spot, should be better. I'd love to give it a ten because it was the easiest thing in the world to upgrade. It's just not there yet.

For Cisco ISE specifically, I manage the cybersecurity as well as the networking team. The networking team uses it to track statistics of users coming in and out of the network platform. We use it to track equipment, collect information on identity, and have the help desk leverage the telemetry to troubleshoot. It is part of our day-to-day operations.

This provided security for our sizeable law firm, which has offices across the entire country. Our lawyers like to be mobile. Around six or seven months ago, we started to roll out iPads and really adopted a mobile culture. One of the things that we wanted to do was to provide flexibility for lawyers to walk with a corporate laptop, or walk with their own personal laptop and still have the capabilities to log on and do what they want to do.

We also used it for the many meeting rooms we have. A lot of law firms have tons of meeting rooms, and we needed to secure some of those meeting rooms as well. The technology allowed us to roll 802.1X. We were able to secure ports in the meeting rooms and have a little bit more flexibility as to where users log in.

For example, a couple of years back, we wanted to secure all of the endpoints for the help desk and networking team and all of the backend team and ensure that, irrespective of where one goes with that laptop, when they log in, it'll automatically move them to a secure VLAN. With ISE, we were able to do that and monitor it.

One of the things that we found most valuable over the years is the ability for it to provide information to the help desk that allows them to troubleshoot issues. We still use a lot of that today and we're going over to DNA soon. We're adopting some of the DNA technologies now, however, ISE has been the mainstay for us for quite a few years now.

The solution is great for establishing trust for every access request no matter where it comes from. That was one of the biggest use cases for us, as one of the problems that we had was to secure a specific VLAN. If a help desk person had a laptop, and they plugged it into a network cable port somewhere, it would automatically put them on a secure network. If a lawyer uses their laptop, it would put them on a separate network. If a phone is plugged in, it will know it's a phone and put it on a phone network. ISE is the only way we have been able to do that. We've streamlined a lot of our provisioning and de-provisioning processes through Cisco ISE.

It has certainly made it easier to secure our devices. For example, we have offices across the entire country. We are a large law firm and have huge offices in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Calgary, and Vancouver. We also have ISO 27001 and 27017 certified as well and I run that program. One of the big things for us is when auditors come for a visit. All of our locations have a conference floor, a whole floor that's dedicated to conference rooms.

There are tons of large conference rooms. When we get audited, conference floors are usually floors that auditors are allowed to go to, as they're publicly accessible floors. We'll get asked, "How do you secure the port?" When we go into the conference room, they can see the network ports." They will ask, "Well, how do you secure these ports? What if somebody came and plugged their machine in?" We then say, "We use Cisco ISE. Cisco ISE identifies that it doesn't belong to our corporate network. It does a check and then puts them right onto the internet, so we don't need to worry about strangers on our closed network.”

The interface is a little bit complex. It doesn't really have an executive dashboard. I'm the director of cybersecurity infrastructure operations for the entire firm, and I'm a very technical person, so I go in, and I can move around and try to figure everything out.

However, the interface is very complex, and there are tons and tons and tons of options. It's quite complex to get into and take a look at. As a result, most of the time, just my networking team would be in there. It's so complex that sometimes I will find something one week, and by next week I can't find it again.

It's too deeply layered. They have to redo the whole interface and have something that's executive based, and another one that's technically based. Even the help desk team and my security team use some of its components, however, they don't go anywhere often, as there are so many options in there. They have to make the interface a little bit more use user-friendly.

I've worked with Cisco for about ten years.

The stability is ten out of ten. We have not really had issues with it. We've had one or two small things, however, in the 12 years that I've been there, I've had very few issues with their platform.

It scales well. We have no concerns at all. When we decided to roll out 802.1X, we only had it on our endpoint, just laptops. Then we said, "Well, let's scale it out to the wireless access point." We went from 2,000 endpoints to 10,000, since people have mobiles. When we rolled it out to do posture checks on everything wireless, we had no issues.

Technical support is good. I have no issues. Cisco supports its products very well, so we've never really had concerns with that aspect. Also, I have a very, very technical team. My guys are CCIE certified, and they are geniuses in their own rights. They've been in Cisco for 20 years.

They know the product very well and they also work very closely with the Cisco support team. The Cisco support team has very good people. They train their people well, and we've never really had issues that the Cisco team can't resolve if my team can't resolve them. We're taking it for granted that we're getting good support.

Positive

We did not use a different solution. We're a Cisco shop, so we've always used Cisco. 

I was involved in the initial setup. I manage the networking team. While I don't necessarily push the commands in, I go through architecture sessions with my team, sign off on it and make sure that what it's doing is worth it, it's my budget. I have to get involved.

We've seen an ROI. They last a very long time. For example, we have Cisco Campus, which is the next 7000s that we put in 2012, and ten years later, they're still there. We just changed the supervisor modules. However, the chassis is still sitting there and is still working quite fine.

If I'm not mistaken, it's at end of sales already, however, its end of support is in 2024. That's what I like about their products. They support their product for a very, very long time.  They easily last for ten years. Even our access switches, which are 4900s, are just being switched out now. Those have been in since probably 2010.

We spend $1.5 million as we have two switches on every single floor. Those are the ones that we're changing out now, and they still work quite fine. Cisco just decided to change them. Their products are very solid and they don't break. We keep them for a very long time. Therefore, the return on investment is not bad. I know when I put it in that I don't need to look at it again for ten more years. I know it's going to be supported for that long. 

Cisco is expensive, however, we have a good partnership with our Cisco partner, and we get really good discounts on it. We have a very, very tight relationship with our Cisco representative. We're the largest law firm in Canada and therefore we get special treatment from the Cisco reps in Toronto.

We've had really good relationships with the team at Cisco Canada, and they all know my team, the architects, the solutions engineers, the salespeople, et cetera. They all know us very well. They come to our offices and we go to their offices. We have a very tight relationship.

When it comes to cost, we'll talk to them. They'll tell us when is the best time to buy, and we'll get good discounts. I've never really had to forgo a technology that was critical to the firm due to cost. I can always work with Cisco to find some way to reduce the cost.

We always focus on Cisco products. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

It has a lot of rich data in it, however, it's hard to get stuff out of it. You really have to know the product very well and live there to know where to go and find what you are looking for. There's a lot of telemetry in there, however, it's very difficult to actually see how to leverage it.

I've even been telling my security team, "Guys, there's a component in Cisco ISE that you need to work on, and you need to log in more often." Then two years later, they'll ask, "Why don't you guys use it?" The security networking team will say, "Well, we gave them access." My security team will say, "It's too complex. We have no time to go in there. We don't know where to find anything." That's the only problem that they need to fix. They need to make it easier to navigate, it's too deep.

Cisco ISE is a good product. It tightly integrates with all of the networking components, but you can leverage it and get a lot of return and investment out of it. However, you need to make sure that when you're rolling it out and when you're initially putting the platform in, you will need to get your help desk team and security team involved.

Of course, the networking team is the one that's probably going to own it, however, there are so many components in there that can help. The help desk can troubleshoot issues and can provide visibility from the security standpoint, and the networking team owns it anyway. If you get them more involved, they'll be more in tune with using it more often.

There are a lot of help desk and security capabilities in there. Still, just the networking team rolled it out, nobody wants to look at it, as it's a networking piece of the platform, yet really it's not. You can get a lot from this platform. That's probably what I would tell people, just get everyone involved from the get-go, so that they can get more value from it in the long run. 

We used it mainly for network access control and full stream for devices.

The product is expensive. It would also be a good add-on to have some machine learning.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for one year.

The product is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It's also recommended for clients during deployment. You're making everything very efficiently managed within the policies. The deployment is also very smooth, allowing you to configure your rooms easily. Once the initial setup is done, it becomes straightforward to understand, especially regarding Windows maintenance.

It was deployed to protect the network from unauthorized users but does not contribute directly to operational efficiency.

Cisco ISE doesn't come cheap but it's still valid working.

We recommend it to our customers.

Cisco ISE provides authentication for various applications. It can integrate with other applications to manage access, including Privileged Access Management for those applications. For a comprehensive environment, Cisco ISE should be able to integrate and provide asset management for an IT organization or any organization.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.