RSA SecurID Reviews

We use it to make logins more secure by using multifactor authentication, making it easier to access various digital resources with a single sign-on.

The most valuable features of RSA SecurID Access are push notifications, multifactor authentication, and ease of integration and deployment.

There is room for improvement in a few areas. Firstly, it lacks support for OIDC and OS capabilities, making it less versatile for integrating various applications. Secondly, there are some limitations in the number of supported applications. Lastly, it doesn't offer an agent-based or reverse-proxy-based approach to integration, which could enhance its flexibility.

I have been using RSA SecurID Access for almost ten years.

It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of RSA SecurID Access an eight out of ten. We have approximately 10,000 users of the solution and it is used daily.

The technical support is good. I would rate it an eight out of ten.

Positive

I would rate the easiness of the initial setup a seven out of ten. It is fairly straightforward with in-house deployment. It took three people to deploy it.

RSA SecurID Access is quite expensive. I would rate it a ten out of ten in terms of costliness.

Overall, I would rate RSA SecurID a seven out of ten. I wouldn't suggest it to others because it is costly, and there are better, cheaper options with similar or superior features available from other vendors. You can get more value for your money elsewhere.

Currently, we do not have any additional sensitive servers, but we were recently tasked with implementing two-factor authentication for all of our servers. To accomplish this, we evaluated multiple vendors and found that RSA SecurID Access was the most compatible solution. Furthermore, RSA SecurID Access is well-established in the industry, making it the preferred choice for our needs.

By implementing RSA SecurID Access, we were able to decrease the number of users who shared account credentials. Additionally, for accounts with higher privileges, we were able to minimize data loss by providing enhanced security. The implementation process was straightforward, and we experienced fewer privilege-related issues as a result.

I would say that the two-factor authentication and the ease of installation and configuration are the most valuable features of this solution.

Sometimes, we encounter issues with other applications that are not compatible with RSA SecurID Access and require expert troubleshooting. At those times, we need additional support from an implementation perspective. This is an area where Oracle can improve as there is no substitute for reliable and efficient support.

A better option would be to have a fingerprint scanner as an additional feature, which would provide multi-factor authentication.

I have been working with RSA SecurID Access for almost three and a half years.

I would rate the stability of RSA SecurID Access an eight out of ten.

RSA SecurID Access is a scalable solution.

I would rate the scalability of RSA SecurID Access a nine out of ten.

Initially, our organization had around 250 users for whom we were aware of the usage of the solution. However, there were certain users for whom we were not notified due to the nature of their job, and hence we were not aware of their usage. Eventually, we decided to scale the solution for all our 4,000 users. Currently, we are using it for 250 users only.

There is a high likelihood that we will expand our usage in the future.

Based on my experience with the initial handling, I would rate their involvement in the high-level design an eight out of ten.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten.

This solution took nearly two months to deploy.

We were dealing with some dark sites and needed a vendor who could provide an on-premises solution. For those specific sites, we had a limited number of tokens and needed two-factor authentication, which RSA was able to provide.

Initially, we relied on vendor support to assist us with the high-level design of the solution. However, for the actual deployment process, we found that it was sufficient to refer to the configuration document and carry out the steps ourselves without requiring further assistance.

The team responsible for implementing the solution consisted of three system engineers, one from the Windows team, one from the DevOps team, and one from the security team. 

The security team member was specifically included to ensure that the authentication solution met the necessary security requirements.

RSA SecurID Access is expensive. 

I would rate the pricing a seven out of ten with ten being expensive.

Licensing fees are paid per year.

After evaluating another solution that had thumb impression features, we received complaints from some users that their thumb impressions were not working. This led us to choose RSA instead.

I would highly recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate RSA SecurID Access an eight out of ten.

I have telecom customers in Indonesia primarily using this solution. They use RSA SecurID Access for adaptive authentication capabilities.

One of the policies for the customers is to have authentication for access. For example, a company may enforce a "need-to-know" policy for securing sensitive information and ensuring compliance.

One of the most valuable feature is the ID soft token and hard token.

There is room for improvement in the RSA backend actually. There's some issue regarding the licensing, so they cannot customize their period. For example, the regular one can be set for 46 months or 15 months, something like that. They want the ability to customize this period for their customers. Currently, it's a fixed period.

There are some issues with licensing. So, it's one of the areas that need improvement.

I have been using this solution for less than a year. 

It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. It is highly scalable. 

In Indonesia, there are around 15 companies, with three of them having more than 5,000 users.

Customer service and support from the RSA side is quite slow. There is a difference in timezones which affects the efficiency and becomes slow. 

There is room for improvement in the support. 

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one being difficult and ten being easy to set up.

The deployment depends on the number of users. For installations with a smaller number of users, it usually takes only one to two hours. However, for larger deployments, like one thousand users, it may take around three to four days.

For the deployment process, the customer only needs to prepare a server dedicated to the console, not many applications for the installation. Then, they need to implement data for it.

I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, where one being cheap and ten being expensive. The license is based on a per-user model. 

I would definitely recommend this solution. It is a good solution for on-prem users. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten. 

The use case depends on the requirements of the customer. If they have on-premise and cloud requirements, it's the best use case instead of using Microsoft, which only supports cloud applications. Our company also offers Microsoft Authenticator and Office 360. We can compete with Microsoft in terms of cloud-only use cases or when the company has requirements beyond just user needs.

The most valuable feature is the risk AI.

The interface needs to improve a lot. It should be easier to manage and navigate.

In future releases, I would like to see support for software tokens on the cloud as well. Currently, it only supports hardware.

I've been using RSA SecurID Access for almost five years. We are using the latest version.

It is a stable solution. I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten. We started with medium to large enterprises. If our target is small businesses, it may be too costly for them.

Sometimes, support takes longer to respond. However, it's pretty easy to raise a support ticket with Huawei and other products.

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, with one being difficult and ten being easy.

There were some issues encountered during deployment, so it took at least a month. Actually, the duration took longer due to the requirements, such as allowing firewall ports, that the client didn't do during the cloud application checkup. They only proceeded with that requirement during deployment, which made the process longer.

We have a team of solution specialists that work with clients. First, we deploy the components, then we integrate the other components with the help of the customer's admin, such as third-party applications that need to be integrated with RSA SecurID Access. We require their help to configure that part.

I would rate the pricing model a seven out of ten, with one being low and ten being expensive. 

As far as I'm concerned, there aren't any additional licensing costs.

You should use the risk-based features of RSA. It's one of the best features available on the market. And it has a lot to offer.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. There is still room for improvement in the product. 

We mainly use this solution for multifactor authentication. 

All of its features work well with the cloud authentication manager and the tokens — the authentication manager is good. The tokens can be integrated with Okta, which is nice. I think it is really good when it comes to the hard token side of things.

There are different compliances across the globe; RSA SecurID Access could be more complaint-based. For example, it would be nice if the authentication manager was compliant with IRAP in Australia. 

I have been using this solution for roughly one year. 

Stability-wise, on a scale from one to five, I would give this solution a rating of three and a half. 

In terms of scalability, I am not sure if it's necessarily scalable on its own, but when integrated with other cloud solutions and improved on a regular basis, it's quite scalable. The cloud side is definitely scalable. It's difficult to say exactly how scalable it is. Scalability-wise, I would say it's slightly above average; just be sure to integrate it with other cloud-based solutions if you need to scale out further. 

I personally haven't had any contact with technical support; I handle the business side of things.

Although I haven't set up this solution personally, our development team has informed me that the initial setup is quite straightforward.

I think the price of this solution is reasonable compared to YubiKey and Duo given that it offers the same similar features. For a large company, if there is an agreement and a discount agreed upon, then you can get this solution for a reasonable price. The price really comes down to the size of your company and the type of discount you agree upon.

They should provide non-production environments that are in development with cheaper non-resalable licenses or even free licenses along with the production — that would be good. 

We also evaluated Duo and YubiKey.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven.

If you're a large business in need of a large agreement, try and get a discount. Also, be sure to ask for a complimentary non-production license when you're buying production licenses; they're available for a cheaper rate compared to non-production licenses.

Single SignON

With the SSO RSA technology, we simplify the login and authorization process for dozens of web sites with high load traffic.

This helped us to secure our web sites and be able to allow authorization only to the users that have pass for all the authorization process flow.

• SSO
• Contextual authorization

• More security
• Easy management of user accounts

• Logging
• Reporting

I've used it for 15 years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

8/10.

7/10.

No previous solution was used.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We implemented it in-house.

We didn't evaluate other options.

It's easy to setup and reliable.

Locking down websites at different levels and by different criteria.

In house applications access via weblink can be locked down to specific groups or criteria.

Single Sign On

Three years.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Never engaged them.

Never engaged them.

No - we are currently migrating to CA Site Minder due to RSA not having a viable SSO solution at this time.

Keep support contract up to date.

• Encryption
• Random key generation and making it available for the user on the fly without any knowledge of the user regarding the keys.

Basically this works best and comes very handy where there is a large number of keys required on a scheduled (Hourly, Daily, Weekly or Monthly etc) basis.

Log-in with the credentials and log-out. After logging out, if the back button of the browser is clicked then it was taking users into the platform without asking for any credentials. Sometimes the URL needs to be altered for log-in.

I have used this solution for almost two years. This is not as an end user but as a Consultant and worked in implementing and migrating the products various versions.

Deployment is smooth if the prerequisites are met completely. Please check the version compatibility.

It was really stable during my use.

As I mentioned earlier, it was scalable as well.

I would really rate the technical support as 4 (in a scale of 1-10). My interaction with the technical support was never good. Case registering is a complex activity and support responds very late and takes a lot of time to resolve small issues.

Initial setup was straightforward in terms of number of steps and activities to be completed. Most important thing is to make sure the prerequisites are met.

We implemented this with our in-house team as we planned well for the implementation.

Go ahead and implement.