Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

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 currently use it for RADIUS and TACACS authentication, but we're moving to SD Campus Fabric. We're tying that in with DNA Center, making it flow with the wireless and authentications at the port, using .1X. That's where we're headed.

We have a 10-node deployment: two PSNs, four dedicated to TACACS and RADIUS, two dedicated to guest WiFi, and two dedicated to pxGrid.

While it doesn't give us a single pane of glass, it helps identify problems more quickly. You can identify what's going on in the logs most of the time.

Also, ISE, working with DNA Center, provides a trust set. It's very important to us that the solution considers all resources to be external, so that we know who is connecting, when and where, at all times; we're not just trusting you because you're internal.

At the moment, RADIUS is the most valuable feature for us. We haven't really opened it up yet, so RADIUS is the best feature because it supplies authentication to our entire campus.

Also, when it comes to securing access to applications and the network, that goes hand-in-hand with fully developing ISE, implementing .1X, tying in DNA Center, and enabling TrustSec to look at SGTs and figure out who's who and what is what.

The knocks I have against the product are the number of bugs that we encounter, constantly, and the amount of upgrading that we have to do.

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

Because of the numerous bugs we've been hit with, on a scale of one to 10, the stability is a four or five.

In theory, the scalability is great, if it all works.

We have six 17-floor buildings, and had a little more than 1,500 users on campus, pre-COVID. ISE is providing access and authentication for everyone who uses the WiFi and it helps us get into our devices.

TAC is moving a little slowly with respect to the technology. They're not keeping up. When you call in with a question, you get 10 questions fired back at you, and it just goes round and round until you figure it out.

Neutral

We previously used ACS.

If you're not going through an agreement, it's very expensive.

We didn't evaluate other options. We're a Cisco shop.

Do a deep dive. If you're a Cisco shop you really don't have a choice. It's the direction they're moving in. Cut your teeth with it and don't rely on outside sources to implement it. Implement it yourself so you know how to troubleshoot it and move forward. If you use outside sources, as soon as they leave, you're left holding the bucket and you don't understand what's going on.

I see the theory behind ISE and if we can get it to gel in our environment, it will be a beautiful thing.

We use ISE for TACACS and 802.1X authentication, wired and wireless. We also use ISE for our VPN authentication, as well as for different policies. We were trying to solve some security holes with Mac solutions, and ISE was a good fit.

It helped our security, which is nice.

I love the policy sets, they are really nice and dynamic. 

This solution helps to support an organization across a distributed network. It's built for enterprises and large-scale deployment. It does what it's supposed to do.

ISE is a little clunky. The front-end feels like it is from the 1980s.

The usability, as far as programmability goes, needs to be improved.

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

The solution is pretty stable. I haven't had any problems.

Cisco ISE is very scalable.

Technical support is horrible. If we call and ask them for help, their first response is always that we should upgrade. That is a horrible response. We pay another company to support us because the technical support can't, even though we pay them to do so. I would give them a two out of ten.

Negative

We have a distributed deployment model. They're all virtual appliances, distributed geographically.

We've got six ISE nodes. Everything is redundant and distributed across multiple data centers. We then used them again for 802.1X, TACACS, and other authentications and policies.

It's hard to dig into at first, so seek help and education.

I'd give Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) an eight on a scale from one to ten because it's Cisco, it's reliable. It has a lot of development and other vendors around it because it is Cisco. It works and is pretty stable.

The ISE product is used to make sure that folks can get access to the application servers that they need to get access to, let's say for accounting and another group like sales and marketing, they would have no business accessing each other's servers, those apps. So you would set up a policy that allows accounting to do what they have to do whether they're remote or on campus and then the sales and marketing folks could never access that. They are totally blocked. It's a virtual firewall, basically.

The way the ISE works is you can get into defining. Let's say, in my case, I've got a Windows laptop and I've got an Apple product and those have unique identifiers, unique back addresses. It would say that this in my profile so I could get to those apps with either device, 24/seven. That's how granular the ISE or these NAC Solutions can get. That you have to have that same device.

They can get into the antivirus. They will check the antivirus to see if it's the most current version and if it's not, if that's your policy, it will let you go through and access the app if the antivirus has been updated. But if the policy was that it has to be the most current version, then it can block you until you upgrade the antivirus.

As far as what could be improved, to continually be thinking about ransomware, cyber attacks, and all those kinds of things. They always have to be innovating. Always have to be improving. I can't give you anything specific because these cyber guys are always coming up with new ways to get in. You just really have to be aware of what's going on.

In the next release, I would want to see this kind of solution in the cloud as opposed to on prem because when enhancements are made to the software, if it's in the cloud, it's overnight. I mean you're not going to have to respin the servers that the license sits on, it's all microservices kinds of things in the cloud. That would be my recommendation. If I'm a customer, that's what I'm looking at - for cloud based software subscriptions.

In terms of stability, they are rock solid. If you set the policy and you implement it, it's not going to break.

They scale. You just have to buy licenses. Whether you're talking about 5,000 users or more, it's just a licensing model.

What I saw most customers trying to do was to outsource it to the partner. A value added reseller would have to do that. They typically haven't been trained. They have to go to school, get certifications and that kind of stuff. That's always a requirement, but most people weren't going to tackle that themselves. They're going to farm it out to somebody who has done it before, who has the expertise to do it.

I do anticipate increased usage. Pick a vendor, like Cisco and Aruba, because for all the threats that are out there, they are always going to have some kind of a NAC strategy. You have to. You really have to. The days of the firewall or perimeter security are over. There are just too many possible ways people can come into your network - disgruntled employees, someone that got paid off, you never know. This is always going to be here.

They're very good. All of them are very good.

It has been pretty much Cisco from the beginning. With another VAR recently, we were pitching the Aruba ClearPass. And actually the ClearPass will run on top of a Cisco infrastructure, which is kind of cool. That's unique, but the ISE doesn't go that way. You won't run ISE on top of an Aruba infrastructure, but Aruba built that solution from day one to be compatible with Cisco switches and routers and wireless stuff. I thought that was pretty compelling.

Cisco has their ISE, their Identity Services Engine. The other one that I would tell a customer to look at would be the Aruba ClearPass. I don't know enough about the Juniper Solution to make any comment about that. But those are the two that I think about the most for identity solutions.

The first part is to figure out what you want, what the customer wants to protect, who needs to be protected, and to gather all the data you can on users, contact information, the devices they use, the Mac addresses of the devices, what time of day, what apps... I mean you really have to dig into all that. It's not easy. It's hard. The bigger the customer, the more complex it is going to be. But if you don't do that, the deployment is not going to go well. Really consulting on the front end has to occur.

On the consulting part, it depends on how big the customer is, how many you're talking about - 5,000 users or 50 users. That drives the answer. I would say if you don't take 30 days to scope it correctly and document, if you do something less than that, the execution deployment is going to go sideways and that can be months. Those things are months. Those could be six months or so. You've got to pick a pilot case. You build a template, you do a small group, and then you see how the reactions are, see if the users accept that policy, make sure it's right. I would do it group by group. Accounting first, or IT first. And then you do the sales and marketing and HR and all those kinds of things.

In terms of ROI, the only thing that comes to mind is if you look at whatever the current market data says for a breach cost if you have ransomware attack or something, if you choose to rebuild your network, as opposed to paying the ransom, what does that cost? Is that $100,000 a day? Is that a million dollars a day? So whatever that cost is, go look at the cost of the NAC licensing, ISE or ClearPass. And that answers the question for you. If you can block the threats on the front end, you can avoid the whole ransomware conversation.

I have not looked at the pricing in a while. I don't really know. These companies are putting together enterprise license agreements, like a site license, and they'll do multiyear and they'll make them pretty aggressive. If you are buying three security packages from them, for example, they'll give you a significant discount. If you're at two, when you look at the cost to go to a third one, they'll just do it because it discounts the whole package altogether.

As for extra fees and costs, it is just a subscription model, pretty predictable.

I can tell you, even as a Cisco person, ISE was considered very complex and difficult to deploy. That was coming from both the customers and the partners that had to deploy it. It can be very complex and you really have to know what you're doing. The thing that we always stress with customers is to go through and build a policy first. Decide what you want to block, and who is going to have access to what, and do some due diligence on the front end because once the policy is created, then you can deploy what we have all agreed to. As opposed to just trying to wing it and figure as you go - that is not a good play. That was always the comment from the Cisco customers.

My advice to prospective users it to find a consultant or a VAR that has done it before. I think that is key. And then talk to a customer that they did it for.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE a seven. That is because it is so complex. I mean, it's not a trivial task.

I'm using Cisco ISE for integration. We are currently using it for 82.X, but we are planning on using it for a different use case in the next couple of quarters.

The core point is that Cisco ISE is the same globally compared to FortiAuthenticator. Whether I deploy in China, the US, South Africa, or wherever, I'm can get all the capabilities. It allows me to directly integrate with 365, and from a communications point of view, that is a good capability. 

Cisco ISE could be simplified somewhat. I would also prefer certificate-based authentication over confirmation-based authentication for all the processes. It's possible for us to do a workaround, but the process needs to be simplified. 

I've been using Cisco ISE for more than a year.

Cisco ISE is stable.

I haven't really tried to scale ISE, but I don't think we'd face any challenges with hard gentle scaling.

We have a good relationship with Cisco support. However, when they do a new release, they take their time. I don't have much of an issue with Cisco support itself, but working with their customer success team and those types of things can be a challenge. It's not just the response time. It's the total resolution time. They'll respond quickly, but when they get the particular fix, it's a challenge. 

In the previous versions, the setup was okay. But as they add more capabilities, it gets more complicated to deploy and maintain the solution. We expect these complexities as part of the roadmap and evolution. We have to set the policy definitions manually because there is no discovery process to define what needs to be authenticated. When a new device is added, we might have to configure something so that it's integrated or set up some data flows of the service we need to do it. These are some of the maintenance activities that we must do to keep it live. We have a good IT team that numbers around 25 people and serves a decent number of customers.

Customers respond to a low price. From the point of view of integration, Cisco ISE hikes up the cost of security, but otherwise, I think it should be okay.

I rate Cisco ISE nine out of 10.

Mainly the use case of the solution is for ensuring that the corporate staff gets access to their authorized systems. 

Another use case is for contractors to get access to the authorized systems. Those are the ones that hope to assist in the maintenance or for authorized admissions to the network.

We do also use it for remote access, for example, VPN's and also for wired and wireless access to the network.

The posturing is the solution's most important aspect. When a user connects his or her machine to the network, the first is for ISE to check whether that machine is authorized, check that that machine is compliant with respect to antiviruses, whether it complies with respect to Windows updates, et cetera. If not, a feature is on auto-remediation, so that the proper antivirus and Windows updates can be pushed to the machine.

At the moment, ISE seems to integrate very well with a number of other technologies. It integrates well with Microsoft and integrates well with other wireless systems.

In terms of the improvements I need, they've already, according to my research, done those improvements with their new versions. The features have already improved on their newer version, and that's why we need to update to that new version.

What is required is that Cisco needs to be doing health checks and following up with the customer to ensure that their Cisco partners have done the deployment right. That's something that has really helped us.

Whenever a partner comes and does any deployment, we would, later on, engage Cisco for a health check, so that Cisco could assist with their products. They would check whether it has been deployed following the best practices - or they would just alert us on which features that we have paid for and we are not taking advantage of that. 

Cisco needs to continue with that health check. That engagement with their customers to reconfirm everything is like a quality assurance that the Cisco partners have given the right stuff to their customers.

This product doesn't work in isolation. For example, when we talk of posturing the Microsoft updates, the system that does automatic updates for Microsoft needs to work in an ideal fashion. The antivirus needs to work. OF course, the antivirus is not Cisco. Those products need to work as they should so that integration of the ISE product will work as well. When all factors are held constant, Cisco works well. 

We have been using the solution for six years now.

We have been using it, especially during alternative working arrangements (due to the COVID-19). Using it, it's been stable. We have not had any issues. The only reason we are looking to upgrade is we didn't know the benefits that the newer version offered. When we checked with Cisco, they advised us that we were missing a few items that actually gaps caused by the partner's setup which we realized we missed during the health check.

We haven't had bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

Everyone in our company is using Cisco. In terms of users, we have about 1,500, however, in terms of endpoints we have, that would be closer to about 3,000 to 4,000 endpoints, including wireless gadgets, switches, laptops, phones, and all that. We use it on a daily basis.

Scalability probably might be an issue. Before we bought ISE, we did sizing for each. We looked at the number of users in the organization, 1,500,  and then we used a factor to look at the uppermost band. We decided we would have to go for 4,000 licenses or 4,500 licenses. We multiplied by three. Based on that, we went for a certain hardware model.

This time, the hardware model we are going for supports up to or has the capability to support up to 10,000 users or endpoints. When we go for that, we will have used even less than 50% of what their hardware is capable of. Above 10,000, there's another hardware model that we're generally expected to go for. 

Basically, when you get the right model, when you do the right scaling, it will be very scalable. However, from the onset, you need to write hardware for USI.

The solution is more meant for enterprise-level organizations. It's not really for small companies, however, that has more to do with the pricing.

We're dealt with technical support in the past. Their support is excellent, except for Umbrella. There is a technology called Cisco Umbrella, and they're a bit slow, however, the technical support in general, depending on the severity of the issue, is very prompt. I would say we are quite satisfied with their level of service.

I've only ever used Cisco. I used to use NAC, however, they changed to ISE. I've never used any other product.

We had a partner set up the solution, and we're not sure if they set it up correctly. The partners come straight to us, and do the deployment. Cisco only is there to be the third eye to come and check that the deployment has been done okay.

You have to make sure that other items connected to ISE are correctly implemented and updated as well (such as the antivirus), otherwise, it won't work as you need it to. There's a lot of configuration that needs to be done at the outset.

I'm not sure how long the deployment takes, as I wasn't at the company when it was set up. However, it's my understanding that it shouldn't take too long so long as everything surrounding it is correctly aligned.

Any maintenance that needs to be done is handled by a third party. That includes patching, et cetera. We have an SLA with a Cisco recognized partner.

We worked with a partner that assisted with the setup.

Afterward, Cisco will also come in to do a "health check" to make sure the setup is correct and they can direct users to features they should use or are not using.

Cisco does not sell directly. They have authorized partners you need to buy through.

I don't deal directly with the licensing and therefore do not have any idea what the pricing of the product is. It's not part of my responsibilities.

It is my understanding, however, that it would be expensive for smaller organizations. Startups may not be able to afford these products.

We don't really worry about pricing, as cheap might be expensive in the long run if you don't get a product that is right for your organization, or is more likely to break down over time.

We are in the process of doing a refresh and I have compared other technologies to see how they stack up. I've looked at Fortinet, for example.

I wouldn't say we are switching from Cisco. What we are doing is we were exploring other technologies that offer similar functions. Sometimes it's good to look outside as you might think you have the best and yet you don't. We are just looking for other solutions to get to know what they offer. If we feel that there is something unique that is on offer somewhere else, then we would want to check that in Cisco and see, where is this offered in Cisco's product? 

We haven't concluded that we are switching. In any case, from what I have seen so far, it is likely we won't switch. 

We're just a customer. We buy their products for our security and our connectivity.

We're not using the latest version. We're actually using a few versions. We have ISE, which is version 2.3. We're supposed to up to version 2.7, and that requires a refresh of the hardware.

That's why we are saying, "Should we try to look for a different solution?" That's why I have been looking for comparisons. We haven't dedicated a lot of time to that yet. From my assessments so far, however, ISE still wins the show and it's likely that the partner that was doing the deployment originally on behalf of Cisco probably missed out on a number of things. It's really about the engineers who are doing the deployment. You need to make sure you have some good ones.

I would recommend this solution to others, especially mature organizations as the smaller organizations may not be able to afford this. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the product at an eight

We primarily use the solution for network access control solution and network device access management. The solution comes with features like posturing.

The valuable feature of the solution lies in its integration capabilities with other applications. This facilitates seamless operations like Microsoft migration across networks and call center management. The ability to segregate multiple domain users in the Access Network ensures efficient, logical management.

The tracking mechanism in Cisco ISE is relatively costly, especially its vendor-specific protocol. It would be beneficial if it could support open source or other devices with a similar checking mechanism, but unfortunately, it remains proprietary.

I have been working with the solution for the past five years.

The solution is highly-stable. I rate it a perfect ten.

The solution is scalable. We have three users for the Cisco ISE.

Their customer service and support is excellent.

Positive

The setup is straightforward. Effective planning is crucial for the setup of Cisco ISE. Placement of the virtual solution requires careful consideration of network accessibility from all branches. Different components may need placement in various areas in a large network. So, thoughtful planning for the architecture is important. It takes around two days for the deployment.

Previously, Cisco ISE had a perpetual licensing model, but now they have shifted to a subscription-based licensing system. We now have to pay recurring costs. This change in the pricing model has presented challenges for many customers accustomed to the simplicity of the previous licensing model.

I recommend this solution to all. Overall, I rate it a perfect 10.

We use Cisco ISE for the authentication of wireless clients.

Cisco ISE has saved me a couple of hours per month in terms of not having to manually onboard clients. However, there are still some manual tasks that need to be uploaded to Cisco ISE.

The most valuable feature of Cisco ISE is its seamless integration with the switches and the entire suite, enabling wireless access and smooth client information retrieval.

One of the problems we have had is that there are many features on Cisco ISE that we are not utilizing. In the real world, it requires multiple parties to come together, just like the AD or OU. Therefore, it won't be solely the responsibility of the network or security personnel to ensure that the solution works as intended and utilizes all the features. It necessitates collaboration among various stakeholders. If Cisco could grant more control, the features could be more focused on network and security administration, reducing the need for integration with other components. This would be beneficial for my organization.

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

Cisco ISE is extremely stable.

As long as we have the funds to purchase the license, Cisco ISE is highly scalable.

We have a contact person in Singapore whom we can reach at any time for support.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward because we used an integrator.

We used an integrator for the implementation.

The cost-benefit analysis primarily considers the time saved through manual labor.

The recent changes in the licensing model have caused some issues with the team. 

We have a rigorous procurement process and carefully evaluated other options before selecting Cisco ISE.

One of the other solutions we evaluated was the Aruba Wireless feed and its accompanying authentication, but we determined that Cisco ISE was superior and more beneficial.

I would rate Cisco ISE with a nine out of ten based on its overall benefits. However, since I am unable to utilize all the features due to the need for coordination from numerous other teams, I would personally assign it a benefit score of only five out of ten.

We attempted role-based access with the Cisco ISE integration, but it didn't work out effectively because it is more of an upper-level issue regarding organization and role level. Multiple teams had to collaborate, and there was a need to configure the Active Directory and Organizational Unit groups. This also involved restructuring and similar tasks. As individuals moved between OU groups, someone had to consistently update the OU groups to ensure the success of the process.

We have made a significant investment in Cisco infrastructure; therefore, we have chosen Cisco ISE as a logical option for our authentication mechanism.

Cisco ISE has not directly assisted our organization in enhancing its cybersecurity resilience.