Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

Cisco Identity Service Engine (ISE) is used mostly for endpoints. If you want to know the profiling and what endpoints are connecting to your company, then ISE is a good solution because it has built-in signatures. Therefore, it knows what kinds of devices are getting added into the network.

You can install it with any cloud provider, e.g., AWS or Azure.

You can install ISE locally. If your site is critical, like in manufacturing, you need to make sure that ISE is a part of the local site. Usually, people install data centers, but you can also install at critical sites.

One of the advantages is that you can easily find rogue endpoints. For example, if you don't want to allow any endpoints where you don't know the people plugging into what kind of devices, ISE can give you a big, clear picture, e.g., what kind of endpoints are getting connected to your network. That is one of the advantages.

From our company perspective, or any company perspective, you need to be PCI compliant and follow HIPAA laws. Therefore, ISE is really instrumental from a cybersecurity perspective. You need to comply if you are PCI compliant and utilizing credit card transactions. ISE can help you become compliant from that perspective.

There is a new trend: a zero-trust kind of architecture. If a company really wants to improve their security, ISE can upscale the security in their network by creating an access policy. This ensures that if the device is not allowed to access something then ISE won't let that device access that resource. This is mostly for segmentation security.

Cisco could improve the GUIs on their hardware.

I have been using Cisco ISE for about seven or eight years.

The stability is good.

You can scale your ISE. You can use ISE for a company of any size: for a small company, a mid-size company, or a large company. ISE can be installed in a cluster-distributed environment. Thus, there is a lot of scalability and resiliency when using ISE.

I would rate the scalability as eight or nine out of 10.

Cisco support is awesome. I would rate them as eight or nine out of 10.

Positive

We did not previously use another solution.

Initially, it is always challenging. Once you get the gist of the deployment, it becomes normal and straightforward afterwards.

Definitely make sure you install ISE in a distributed fashion. Make sure there is a lot of high availability. Otherwise, if your ISE goes down, then you won't be able to authenticate your endpoint. It is better to install ISE in a high availability solution.

We have definitely seen ROI as we are getting compliant. When you are compliant, you get fewer fines from PCI and those types of organizations. 

It is not that pricey.

We have Zscaler, but it is not operating in the same zone as ISE.

Use ISE if you want to build more resilience within your organization.

I would rate the solution as eight or nine out of 10.

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 use it for wired .1x, wireless authentication, VPN, and multi-factor authentication. We wanted to have a consistent experience for authentication and authorization of endpoints across the network, as well as security.

As a water utility organization, we're considered critical infrastructure by the feds. Everyone needs water. So it's important for us to protect our industrial control systems, our SCADA systems. ISE helps us do that by segmenting them off from the rest of the network.

And by eliminating trust, it helps us with audits, including CJIS because we have a law enforcement division, and trying to conform to the NIST standards. A lot of government agencies are becoming more familiar with the Zero Trust model and ISE makes our audits go a lot faster and a lot smoother than they used to.

The endpoint profiling feature is among the most valuable because it keeps me from having to manually maintain a MAC address bypass list to track endpoints. I can have ISE profile them for me and then put them in the right bucket.

In addition, ISE really adopts and is strong in the Zero Trust model where we consider everybody a foreign endpoint until they prove they belong on the network. ISE just seems to be built from the ground up to do that, whereas with other solutions, you have to "shoehorn" that in.

I also rate it pretty highly for securing access to our applications and network. If you have the good fortune of being a total Cisco shop, you can utilize SGTs, end to end, across the network. It can be a little tricky to get working, but once it does, it creates quite a consistent experience for any endpoint, even if it moves anywhere in the network.

I'd like to see the logging be a bit more robust in terms of what it has baked in. If I want to do any in-depth searching, I have to export all the logs to an external platform like Elastic or LogRhythm and then parse through them myself. It would be nice if I could find what I want, when I want it, on the platform itself.

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

Now, the stability is pretty good. I've been working on it since the product launched and it was a bit sketchy. Its current state is really good right now.

The only thing we have run into was a bug when we ran virtual appliances, but that turned out to be an issue with our storage networking QoS policies. That wasn't really an ISE problem, it was more of a storage problem.

In terms of supporting a distributed network, it's pretty powerful. You can stand it up and cluster it and it scales out pretty well. You can put nodes wherever you want to service authentication requests. We're able to scale up or out and we can choose how and when we do that with either virtual or physical machines, meaning it's very flexible. 

It scales quite well. One of the things that Cisco is good at is keeping things pretty simple when you want to scale it. If you want to scale up, you get stronger admin and monitoring nodes. If you want to scale out, you get more policy service nodes. It's quite easy to stand them up, really anywhere, if you use virtuals.

We use it around our Fort Worth campus, which has about half a dozen buildings. By the end of the summer, we'll have it deployed to all of the rest of our five campuses. We have about 30 remote locations across 12 counties in North Texas and they're all using ISE. It works out pretty well.

We have it on-prem right now, but we are moving to a hybrid cloud platform on Azure for a lot of our applications, so we're starting to do proofs of concept with ISE in Azure.

TAC is pretty good. I would definitely suggest getting their solution support, which provides higher maintenance. That way, when you do get someone, you get someone who knows what they're doing. If you get the higher level of support, you get some really smart people who can fix things pretty quickly.

Positive

We used to use Aruba ClearPass. It was somewhat clunky to use and it didn't integrate well with third-party platforms. If you used Aruba, it worked great. If you didn't use Aruba, and were pointing things at ClearPass, it had some issues. We found that ISE typically handled things a little bit better. We could point anything at ISE and take care of it.

The initial deployment was pretty straightforward. It's very simple to just turn the box on and plug into it. You go through a couple of settings and then you can log in to the GUI and pull in all the other nodes that you want.

After the gear came in, it took us about a day to deploy it. I started by implementing it at the local campus. That way, if I broke anything, I could just walk down the hall and not have to drive anywhere.

I stood up the first cluster, and then it was another engineer and me who worked on deploying it out to all the buildings. We started out in monitor mode, to see what it would do if we had turned it on. Once we had remediated anything that looked like it was authenticating incorrectly on the wired network, we went to closed mode and that's where we are now.

Return on investment falls in line with the business vision of securing our resources and protecting them against cyber attacks and nation-state attacks. It's hard to put a monetary value on clean water.

Licensing is a disaster. It's a mess and I hope they fix it soon.

In addition to ClearPass, we looked at Forescout. At the time we looked at Forescout, it was more of an inline product and we weren't looking to add more infrastructure between parts of the network to try to do inline authentications. It seemed easier to do it on the switch ports and have them talk to ISE.

It's a very strong platform, especially now that we're on version 3.1. It's definitely my go-to. I would recommend it over any other NAC platform.

It requires a lot of technical knowledge to actually get it off the ground and running. It's not quite as intuitive as it could be, but it's still a solid platform.

This solution provides access to the employees of the company.

It works. It is simple. It works very well. We have a good strategic setup. We are very happy with the solution and we have no problem using Cisco ISE solutions.

The solution is stable.

It's scalable. 

I'm not working in the IT team. I'm working the sales team. While there are a lot of features that we could improve in our organization, I can't speak to the exact changes that should be made.

We'd like to be able to integrate the product with our solutions. Sometimes we face some infrastructure where there are multiple vendors and sometimes the ISE is not the best tool to manage multiple vendor infrastructure. 

The price here in Brazil is very expensive. 

Configurations can be a bit complicated. 

Sometimes we have problems integrating logs into SIEM solutions. We have to deliver some logs to a SIEM secret platform, and sometimes it does not work well. It would be better if we had better integration or a better way to deliver the logging SIEM platforms.

I've been using the solution for five to six years. 

The stability is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

We have no problem with the management of our infrastructure when we need more accountability from the platform. Scalability was fine. There is no problem.

We have 6,000 people in Brazil using the solution. 

I consider technical support to be perfect. Anytime that I have problems with shifting solutions, they work well with me and I have no problems with working with them.

I'm a reseller from Fortinet and Cisco solutions. I also have experience with Check Point. 

I can't speak to how the setup goes. I'm not working directly in deployment. What I've heard from my customers, for example, is that it is not difficult to set up, however, it may be to run all the features.

What I've heard is the first setup is very, very easy and to do some adjustments is very easy, however, when you want to go further in the configuration, that could be a bit easier.

I can't speak to the exact pricing of the product.

I work with various versions of the solution. 

We're resellers.

Others should know it's a very good solution, very stable. There are a lot of features, and it is a secure solution. It's the first solution that we indicate to our customers and most of the time, the decision of the customer is to deploy a Cisco product. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

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.

Right now, we are doing all wireless through ISE. We have also started migrating to wired.

We have about 20 sites. By having enough node regionalization, we have been able to have all our sites utilizing it.

It is deployed to multiple locations. We have one in Mexico, one in Kelso, two in Asia, and then two in the US.

It improved our standardization with all its policy sets being the same. 

Since migrating towards doing wired ports over ISE with 802.1X and MAB authentication, our organization's security risk has been better. We have been able to establish better layouts, so devices can move and we don't have to worry about where they need to go.

The Guest Portal is a big feature for us. 

It does a good job of establishing trust for every access request. We have had a little bit of a challenge with profiling, but we are probably about 80% there.

I have been using it for five years.

The stability is fairly good. Since we went to the 2.6 version, it has been a lot better.

Scalability is good as far as adding another node. However, if you ever wanted to increase the node that you have, then you need to buy a bigger license. You also have to build a new VM for it because you can't just scale it.

I had one problem with the portal. I got support from TAC and it worked out really well. It was really good. I would rate the support as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We did not previously use another solution.

We were looking to solve the challenge where people were moving devices that they were not supposed to.

The initial deployment was straightforward and took a couple of months. It was actually a project for a customer, then the customer backed out. So, we spent a good year without using it for anything.

The initial deployment was for a customer in Asia, so we had to deploy it in our Asia data center. We then deployed it in our US data center to kind of match that configuration.

We did use a consultant from Presidio for our first deployment project. Since then, we have been doing deployments ourselves.

Two people were needed for the deployment: the consultant and myself.

There is probably a return on investment as far as increased time for people not having to worry about devices moving around nor having to be contacted about moving them to the appropriate spot.

Its licensing could be improved. It used to be perpetual, but now they are moving away from that.

Make sure you understand where you want to deploy nodes and how far away they are from other locations since there is some latency involved.

We don't do any sort of application-based stuff right now. It is just purely assigning devices to what VLAN they are supposed to go to.

We are looking to upgrade to a newer version. Hopefully, by seeing some of the stuff at Cisco's event, I can find some more features that we could use.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

We use it mostly for identity, authentication, and authorizations for wireless and wired. The challenges we were looking to address were mostly around the authorization and authentication of the users. We wanted to use the Identity Services Engine to make sure that the users accessing our network were authorized users, with the authentication happening before.

The integration with Active Directory, and finding and authorizing users based on their Active Directory groups, rather than just their identities, was a big change for us.

The most valuable feature is 801.1x and another very good feature is the TACACS.

In addition, it establishes trust for every access request. That's very valuable. We can't authorize users without it. The fact that it considers all resources to be external is very important. Without Cisco ISE, we couldn't authorize our users, contractors, and everyone else. It's our one source of truth for authentication and authorization.

It's also very good when it comes to supporting an organization across a distributed network. We like that. 

I would like to see integration with other vendors, and the RADIUS integration needs to be improved a little bit.

Other than that, all the features that we're using look good.

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

It has been very stable. There's no problem with that, as we have redundancy in place.

It can be scaled very quickly by adding more nodes to the solution. The scalability is very good.

We have it deployed in three data centers in Austin, Texas, Lewisville, Texas, and one in Poland. It's a distributed deployment and we have around 8,000 endpoints on it so far.

Technical support has been okay, but I wouldn't describe it as "very good." We have had some problems with technical support. Sometimes it takes them too long to resolve a problem. 

Neutral

The pricing is good. The last time we purchased four new appliances the price was doable for any organization of our size.

In my previous job, I used Aruba ClearPass. It's similar to ISE. They're both good.

Design it well in the first place. If you design it well, you can scale it. Always read, line-by-line, the Cisco guide because that's where you'll find all the information about the design and the scalability. If you design it correctly in the first place, you will have a smooth ride.

We want to use it in a hybrid cloud deployment, but we currently use it 100 percent on-premises. As we move more into the cloud, we're trying to integrate that with Cisco ISE to make it our authentication and authorization source. We're not really into the cloud yet. We're just doing some dev. We're building a whole cloud strategy.

We use it for identity services, profiling, and locking down devices.

We're an airport, so when anybody plugs in a device, it's obviously a really big security point for us.

We have a lot of different devices that get plugged in and we really don't have the manpower to address each one individually, as far as our network goes. Cisco ISE has really cut down a lot on the size of our ticket queues and the manpower. My boss is extremely happy about that.

The solution has also eliminated trust from our organization's network architecture and that has actually been positive because we have to meet PCI compliance. It is very important for us to be able to take cards. It has also helped to improve our pen-testing scores at the end of the year.

Resilience, in cyber security, is at the top of the list. It's one of the most valuable aspects and has been extremely important for us. Before, we had mid-range scores, but over the last couple of years, between implementing ISE and a few other technologies and SIEMs, we've gotten into the 90th percentile with our pen-testing scores. We were sitting at about 75 to 80, so this is a pretty huge jump for us.

Profiling is one of the most valuable features. We have a lot of different devices between cameras, access points, and laptops that get plugged in.

Establishing trust for every access request, no matter where it comes from, is extremely important for us, especially because we are an airport entity. We do have port security implemented throughout our airport, but on the more sensitive side of things, it's a little bit more hardcore regarding what we need to allow, per security zone.

There are always some things that I would request.

I first started using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) in about 2015, but we recently just spun it up here at my current job.

The stability of the solution is a 10 out of 10.

The scalability is also a 10 out of 10.

For this particular solution, the technical support has been pretty good.

Positive

I've worked with ISE before, and it was actually my suggestion that we buy the license for it.

The initial deployment was pretty straightforward only because I had done it before. I worked on it with a colleague and taught him everything about it, just in case I was incapacitated.

From the start, including getting to an agreement, budgeting, and scheduling, the deployment took about three months.

In terms of an implementation strategy, once we got the licensing, we just stood the nodes up. Then we did the features one-by-one, with proper RFCs done, just to see, in a break-fix manner, if each thing we implemented would break something.

We used a consultant. The deployment required two people on our side. I was in charge of the initial rollout and implementation, and I'm in charge of managing it. However, if I'm not there, we have another network guy who does the day-to-day tasks and checks the logs to see if he needs to approve anything.

We have definitely seen return on investment. We have so many different security solutions in place, and ISE just works really seamlessly with them. I get to keep my job, so that's a pretty ROI from my point of view.

The pricing is fair for what it does. The only time I've really not been too crazy about the price is for Cisco Prime, which is a management solution for Cisco products.

We implemented a request for purchase and talked to a few different companies. One of the companies was Presidio. There was another company close by called Net Solutions. Three out of the five companies that we talked to were outsourcing the work to pretty much just bring in an ISE solution, so we just decided to do it in-house.

If you are on the fence about it, and you don't have someone on your team who has worked with the product before, definitely reach out to a company or a certified Cisco entity to help with the rollout. It's pretty painful if you don't know what you're doing.

Resilience is never a bad idea and it's never too late to start working towards it or to begin the journey to Zero Trust. It's very important in this day and age. 

I'm the only cyber security administrator that we have currently, so if we hadn't gotten this solution in place, I highly doubt that I would have been able to make it here to Cisco Live 2021, so it's excellent.

From 2015, when I first started using it, until now, there's not really a lot that I would ask be changed. They've been hard at it ever since I first started using it.

It's been incredible ever since we got it in place.