Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

We utilize Cisco ISE for wireless user authentication, as well as authentication, authorization, and accounting for our network devices.

Cisco ISE has made us much more secure. It has streamlined the process of adding new devices to our wireless network, specifically wireless-only devices. Moreover, thanks to scripting capabilities and flexibility on the Cisco ISE side, it has significantly reduced the amount of manual effort required by everyone involved.

Cisco ISE effectively secures our infrastructure from end to end, enabling us to detect and remediate threats. It does a commendable job of securing both end users and their devices, including guest-wired devices for anonymous access. Its ability to compartmentalize everything makes it incredibly convenient, and the comprehensive tracking features are particularly valuable.

Cisco ISE has helped to free up our IT staff's time by saving approximately 40 hours per month, as we are constantly uploading new devices. 

Cisco ISE has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience by authenticating users. It ensures that only certain MAC addresses can be on our network, particularly on our production wireless network. Additionally, it keeps track of authentication frequency and alerts us if clients authenticate too often, allowing us to optimize CPU cycles.

The live logs and live sessions for troubleshooting are the most valuable features because they provide a detailed report of any issues. I appreciate that they guide us through every step that a user or authenticator goes through.

Cisco ISE can become quite complex, especially with policy sets, the entire authentication process, and everything involved. I would appreciate a more comprehensive visual depiction of the steps from the beginning to the end.

I have been using Cisco ISE for five years.

We have never experienced any stability issues with Cisco ISE.

We can scale Cisco ISE by adding additional licenses or servers.

Cisco technical support is excellent. They respond promptly, and their thoroughness is remarkable. For instance, we can send them numerous logs, and they will analyze them in detail for us.

Positive

We have seen a return on investment around the soft cost, with how streamlined everything is, how we don't have to really worry about wrong devices getting on our production Wi-Fi.

I give Cisco ISE a ten out of ten.

Cisco ISE is a great tool. It integrates well with Active Directory and numerous other components. The solution has become a fundamental part of our network and I recommend Cisco ISE to others who are looking to improve their cybersecurity.

We use ISE primarily for RADIUS authentications on our wireless networks and VLAN segmentation for those users.

ISE makes things easier because we all work on one system and we all have the same views, so one person is not looking at a different system. We can all look at the same system and say, "Okay, go to this link." Also, you can integrate it with DNAC (Cisco DNA Center), which is something I am very into. It helps us troubleshoot from the client all the way down to the packet. DNAC can tell us, within ISE, when they're integrated, "This is the issue they're having," and we can report back.

It's great across a distributed network for securing access to all our apps and the network. We don't have to worry about which system is going through which access layer or which security system. We can just put everything into ISE. We don't have to separate the switches from the routers to the wireless. It's all just "one-stop, go." It used to be that our switches were in a separate system for authentication routers and the wireless was all on EAP. It was confusing. ISE consolidated all that.

For my use cases, the in-depth troubleshooting into why a client can't connect or why they failed, is very valuable. I can go back to someone and say, "Hey, it's not my network. It's their certificates or user error," or something else. For my coworkers the VLAN segmentation means a client got in, it dropped them into this VLAN, and that's where they belong. They can't get out. It makes things more efficient.

Also, the fact that ISE considers all resources to be external is very important. We use ISE in our retail environments for our payment sleds. We want our payment system to be secure. Zero Trust is our whole thing. It's great that everything is external to ISE and then everything has to go through the system.

The opinion of my coworkers, and it's mine as well, is that the user interface could use some tender loving care. It seems counterintuitive sometimes. If you go to the logs, it's hard to figure out which one you need to look at. My ISE admin probably has different ideas, but for us, that's the main complaint.

I've been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for about 15 years.

Uptime is great. I don't have a complaint with ISE with uptime. It's been a rockstar. As far as I'm aware, we have probably had 95 percent uptime, or even 99 percent. Nothing is 100 percent. When there's an issue, it's usually not ISE.

Scalability is our issue: keeping up with the number of licenses we need for customers and clients. That's our main concern right now. Part of that is on us and part of that is on ISE.

For us, ISE is global between retail stores, warehouses, and world headquarters. Our entire wireless network of over 30,000 devices uses it. In North America alone, we have 13,000 access points and usually around 60,000 clients.

We've had some issues with support. We usually just get our account manager involved and they get the BU online.

It depends on the role of the dice and your TAC engineer and how well they understand the issue. We've had numerous cases where we decided to say, "Okay, escalate."

Neutral

We had ClearPass but we found some difficulties with it and those were things that ISE was better at, such as EAP authentication. We had some issues with how ClearPass interacted with the Cisco wireless environment. The merging of the two technologies was hard.

We have jumped around. We were Juniper, Aruba, and then a Cisco corporate environment, and then a mixed environment. We finally consolidated those between retail, warehouses, and our world headquarters, into a unified Cisco environment with ISE as our RADIUS backbone. ISE gave us what we needed to unify all of them. We finally shut down our last ClearPass server a couple of years ago.

Being fully honest, the Cisco licensing model right now is really confusing. We don't know what licenses we have where. We have Smart licensing, but the different levels are way confusing.

There are different levels for different accesses. We have an enterprise license agreement with Cisco, but all the details of what we have with those licenses get confused in the massive amount of licenses we have, or in the different license levels we have for different geos, et cetera. The Smart license portal is there, but right now, we just don't have the time or manpower to put into that.

I give it an eight out of 10 mostly because when you get in to start configuring the details, it's hard to find some stuff. Otherwise, it's a great platform.

We use Cisco ISE to set different policies for various profiles. For example, someone on their own device has a different set of policies and postures than a person on a company machine. 

Currently, we are using Cisco's dictionary for both device and user authentication. When I say "device authentication," I mean we authenticate users who access network devices. 

We consider the running policy when users want to access a data center server. The user is forwarded to the ISE servers to be authenticated, and they're given a password defined on the ISE for them according to the policy.

We have two virtual servers with different rules. For example, one is used to authenticate and audit, and the other to authorize and authenticate. And since most of our centers don't support full ISE integration, we use only some features. That means not all our users are not authenticated via the ISE.

It's easy to change and add policies.

Some of ISE's features need to be more agile. For example, we couldn't integrate our data because Cisco needs your data to be in its own format.

We implemented Cisco ISE about a year ago.

We have capacity limitations with retail, and we aren't integrating ISE for all the users. We have about 2,000 end-users that need to be integrated, and we added the entire thing to about 1,000 devices.

I rate Cisco support eight out of 10. We initially had difficulty integrating ISE with another solution we use from Huawei. We deleted the existing profiles defined on ISE and lost our definitions and profile features that were there before. We ordered the platform through these resellers, but they haven't been helpful, so we get more support from Cisco. They are very good.

Positive

Setting up this solution wasn't that difficult for me because I was involved with all of these projects. We implemented everything last year and deployed a portion of the modules integrated into our environment. It wasn't that difficult to install and apply to get these permissions.

A contractor came to help us deploy everything as part of the bank's data center solution. Since then, I have installed one of the components that we deployed at the time. It was a local tech company that got the platform given to them. That's how they got everything implemented with it together.

The return on investment depends on how you utilize the solution. We haven't utilized it well thus far, so I would rate it four or six out of 10.

There is a limit on the number of nodules supported. The number of users per license is limited to around 2,000, so the license price should be adjusted to take these limitations into account or we should be allowed to add more users to the same devices.

We use ISE because most of our networking devices are from Cisco, including the VIRL lab. I have to compare other vendors, but I don't think the cost difference is so much that I would switch solutions. 

I rate Cisco ISE eight out of 10. It works fine in our experience. 

At first, Cisco ISE was a replacement for only ACS RADIUS. It was mostly for remote access VPNs and Wi-Fi. That was it, and later, it evolved into a complete ACS replacement, so it's for both TACACS and RADIUS. Nowadays, we also deploy .1X quite a lot. 

It was a driver towards .1X. With the features that were there on the network side and the features that were there with Cisco ISE, it was way easier to go to .1X.

It's the brain of many things. It's the brain for VPNs. In Cisco ISE, we control where the users are allowed to go. Customers are able to do that by themselves. It's the same for .1X. It's the heart of security.

Cisco ISE improved our cybersecurity resilience. It enabled features that were not present or possible before.

For customers, it's great. It has a GUI, so the customers themselves can edit ACLs or even modify the policies. It's also an all-in-one solution with RADIUS and TACACS.

I'm frustrated by the resource consumption and how many resources it needs to run. It takes a lot of RAM. It takes a lot of space and a lot of IO power. It's frustrating to do upgrades because it takes a long time. Things are at a much smaller scale where we are than in the US. We even have smaller virtualization farms, so it takes a considerable amount of power and resources.

We've been using this solution since its initial release. It was probably version 1.1 or 1.2.

I don't remember opening a case for Cisco ISE except for the licensing problems, but several years ago, it took some time for people to get to the right way to solve the problem. I am not sure whether it was my inability to clarify the situation or whether it was a matter of poor training, but it was sometimes very painful.

I've been working with this product for a while. It doesn't seem difficult. However, in terms of resources, it takes a while to get it running. I don't think it's necessary to be so resource-consuming and slow. That makes it complicated. 

Pricing is where things got a bit more complicated. Previously, it was a one-time purchase and we just had to renew support. These days, there's a subscription model, which is supposed to be easier and cheaper as well, but it's more pricey. Customers are aware of that, and many vendors are going the same way. They are trying to go along with the new model.

We did consider other products, but it didn't make sense to go for any competing vendor because of the integration with other Cisco products. AnyConnect is the best VPN product I am aware of, and that's usually why we stick with Cisco.

We also sell HPE products. We've deployed some HPE RADIUS solutions, but we prefer Cisco these days.

To someone researching this solution who wants to improve the cybersecurity in their organization, I would tell them to first think about what they are trying to achieve and then think about Cisco ISE as a tool. It isn't a turnkey solution.

It hasn't saved our IT staff's time. It was something that wasn't present before. It's an evolution that is necessary, but I wouldn't say it saves time.

It did help us consolidate any tools or applications. It was either a replacement of some legacy products or it was an improvement where it introduced new features that were not present before, but it didn't help get rid of some of the other products. It was a new thing to place into the network.

Overall, I'd rate Cisco ISE a six out of ten.

Right now we use Wireless.1X and TACACS for device management. It's in our wired network too, but only use it for MAC address bypass.

It has helped to consolidate tools and applications. Previously, we had Windows NPS in some places and then Cisco ACS in other places. Now, Cisco ISE is all I use. This consolidation hasn't had a whole lot of impact on our organization. It wasn't that big of a deal to begin with.

It works as a good RADIUS server. It has lots of features. It works with all the proprietary Cisco AB pairs and features.

It could be less monolithic. It's one huge application, and it does everything under the sun, so it's hard to deal with and upgrade and manage.

I've been using Cisco ISE for three or four years.

Overall, it's pretty stable.

It seems to be pretty good for what we're doing with it.

Cisco TAC support is hit or miss. It depends on who you got. I'd rate them a six out of ten.

Neutral

We didn't have any network access control. For the wireless, we had ACS, and some places used NPS from Windows.

We chose Cisco ISE because we have a Cisco network. It seemed like the obvious choice.

The initial setup was pretty easy, but trying to get all the switches to talk to ISE was pretty complex. It required a lot of configuration and learning, and we found a lot of bugs and issues along the way.

Initially, we took the help of Presidio. They were good. They knew a lot about it and helped us a lot. 

In terms of detection and remediation of threats, it wouldn't detect anything. If we integrated it with other products, it could cut certain clients off from the network, but we haven't gotten that far yet.

It hasn't helped to free up our IT staff. It has probably consumed more time.

I don't have a lot of familiarity with other products, so I'd rate it a six out of ten.

We use it for NAC and wireless, and for our TrustSec policy. These are the three primary use cases we have so far.

It's a network access control solution for us. Previous to Cisco ISE, we didn't have one, so, from a security standpoint, it increased our security visibly.

It has enhanced our security. We have a solution now that can protect us at the access layer, which we didn't have before.

It has helped to consolidate any tools or applications. We only have to use one product for RADIUS, TACACS, and authentication servers. NAC and other things are consolidated into one system, which is nice.

It has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience. The security at the access layer through NAC has been nice, and then the ability to enforce policies dynamically using profiling and NAC and TrustSec is good.

With NAC, the profiling feature is valuable. We're able to see what we have out there in the network and dynamically assign policies to it. We can then use that to enforce TrustSec policy or anything else with NAC. 

There should be more visibility into TrustSec policy actions. When TrustSec blocks something or makes any kind of changes to the network, we don't always see that. We have to log into the switch itself, or we have to get some type of Syslog parsing to do that. Cisco DNA Center may do it, but it would be better if that was integrated into Cisco ISE.

In terms of securing our infrastructure from end to end so we can detect and remediate threats, it's a little bit difficult in terms of visibility, but, generally, we would just go through the logs and see if there's a problem or not.

I've been working in this organization for three to four years, and they have been using it prior to my joining. 

It's very stable for us.

It isn't something we have had to deal with.

They're pretty good. Compared to others, Cisco is probably above average. With Cisco TAC, usually, if the first level doesn't resolve it, you can get up to a higher level within a day or two, which is better than a lot of other vendors we've been working with lately, such as Palo Alto. Cisco tech support is doing pretty well. I'd rate them a seven out of ten. Being able to access higher-level engineers and escalate things more quickly is always going to improve any case.

Neutral

Before Cisco ISE, we didn't have a similar solution.

It was implemented before I joined, but it was probably phased. It was first for wireless and then became more of a NAC thing. It was a long process. It was somewhat difficult just because of how much was required of it. I don't think it was particularly painful.

We get a return on investment from it. It's a solution that's often required for IT insurance, etc. It's definitely needed but do we need to have one from Cisco? I don't know, but there's definitely an ROI there.

To someone researching this solution who wants to improve cybersecurity in their organization, I'd say that make sure you know what you're getting into. Understand and have a good plan going into it and have operational support for not just networking, but also help desk and other IT teams before deploying this solution.

I don't know if Cisco ISE has saved us any time because it's an enhancement to our security that we didn't have before. It probably takes a little more time than not having it. Having no security is super easy because you don't have to worry about anything, but if you have any security product, you have to do work to support that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've had no issues with stability.

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

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

Positive

We previously used ACS.

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

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

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

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.