Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

My clients are small to enterprise-size companies using this networking solution. One of my clients is a leading pharmaceutical manufacturing company, providing genetic medicine. The network they have has approximately 5,000 device inventory. Additionally, I have a couple of clients in the banking industry in the USA that has quite a large networking infrastructure using this solution.

The most valuable features are the NAC and the bundles that are available with Cisco ISE, such as Cisco ACS being integrated.

The solution infrastructure configuration is complicated to set up. They have improved over the years but there is still a lot of room to improve. When comparing the simplicity to other vendors, such as Fortinet and Aruba they are behind.

I have been using this solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

Cisco's support system is very good and they are well known for it.

I am also using FortiNAC and it is similar to Cisco ISE. However, Cisco is spread across the globe with bigger clients, large enterprises. FortiNAC is not as mature, but they are still working their way up in the market

The price of the solution is price fair for the features you receive.

I have evaluated other solutions from Aruba and Fortinet.

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a seven out of ten.

Our use cases are based around dot1x. Basically wired and wireless authentication, authorization, and accounting. 

In terms of administration, only our networking team uses this solution. Probably five to ten administrators manage the whole product. Their role pretty much is to make sure that we configure the use cases that we use ISE for — pretty much for authenticating users to the wired and wireless networks. We might have certain other advanced use cases depending on certain other business requirements, but their job is pretty much to make sure all the use cases work. If there are issues, if users are complaining, they log into ISE to troubleshoot those issues and have a look at the logs. They basically expand ISE to the rest of the network. There is ongoing activity there as well. The usage is administrative in nature, making sure the configurations are okay, deploying new use cases, and troubleshooting issues.

This solution has definitely improved the way our organization functions.

In terms of features, I think they've done a lot of improvement on the graphical user interface — it looks really good right now. ISE is always very complicated to deploy because it's GUI-based. So they came up with this feature called work centers, that kind of streamlines that process. That's a good feature in the product right now.

An issue with the product is it tends to have a lot of bugs whenever they release a new release.

We've always found ourselves battling out one bug or another. I think, overall they need to form a quality assurance standpoint. ISE has always had this issue with bugs. Even if you go to a Cisco website and you type all the bug releases for ISE, you'll find a lot of bugs. Because the product is kind of intrusive, right? It's in the network. Whenever you have a bug, if something doesn't work, that always creates a lot of noise. I would say that the biggest issue we're having is with all the product bugs.

Also, the graphical user interface is very heavy. By heavy, I mean it's quite fancy. It's equipped with a lot of features and animations that sometimes slow down the user interface.

It's a technical product — I don't think a lot of engineers really need fancy GUIs. We pretty much look for functionality, but I think Cisco, for some reason, is putting an emphasis on its GUIs looking better. We always look for functionality over fancy features.

We've had issues with different browsers, and sometimes it's really slow. From a functionality standpoint, we would rather the GUI was light and faster to navigate.

ISE has a very good logging capability but because their GUI is so slow, we feel it's not as flexible or user-friendly as we would like it to be, especially when it comes to monitoring and logging. At the end of the day, we're implementing ISE for security. And that means visibility.

Of course, you can export the data into other products to get that visibility, but we would like to have a better type of monitoring, maybe better dashboards, and better analytics capabilities within the product.

Analytics is one thing that's really lacking. Even if you're to extract a report, it just takes a lot of time. So, again, that comes down to product design, but that's definitely an area for improvement. I think it does the job well, but they can definitely improve on the monitoring and analytics side.

I have been using this solution since they released the first version over ten years ago.

Scalability is pretty good, provided that you design it properly from the get-go. There are design limitations, depending on the platforms, especially the hardware platforms that you select. On the scalability front, it's not a product that can be virtualized very well — that's an issue. Because in the world of virtualization, customers are always looking for products that they can put in their virtual environments. But ISE is not a truly virtualized product, as in it doesn't do a lot of resource sharing.

As a result, it's not truly virtualized. Although they do have the VM offering, it's not virtualization in the proper sense of the word. That's one limitation of the product. It's very resource-intensive. As a result, you always end up purchasing additional hardware, actual ISE physical servers. Whereas, we would like to have it deployed in virtual machines if it was better designed. I think when it comes to resource utilization, it probably isn't optimized very well. Ideally, we would like to have a better-virtualized platform.

Tech support tends to be pretty good for ISE. We do use it extensively because of all of the bugs we encounter. 

Mostly it's at the beginning of setting the whole environment up. Typically, once it's set up properly, it tends to work. But it's just that the product itself integrates with a lot of other products in the network. It integrates with your switches, with your APs, etc. So, it's a part of an ecosystem. What happens is, if those products experience bugs, then it kind of affects the overall ISE solution as well — that is a bit of a dependency. The ISE use cases are dependent on your network access devices, but that's just the nature of it. The only issue with support is you might have to open a ticket with the ISE team, but if you're looking at issues in your wireless network or switches, you might have to open another ticket with their tech team for switches. 

For customers using Cisco, end-to-end, they should improve the integration and providing a seamless experience to the customer. But right now, they have to refer to other experts. They come in the call, but the whole process just takes some time.

That's an area that they can improve on. But typically, I would say that the support has been good. We've been able to resolve issues. They are responsive. They've been good.

Overall, I would give the support a rating of eight.

The setup is not straightforward. It's complex. You need to have a high level of expertise.

It's an expensive solution when compared to other vendors. It's definitely more expensive than ClearPass. It's expensive, but the issue, again, comes down to scalability. Because you can't virtualize the product, there's a lot of investment when it comes to your hardware resources. Your CapEx is one of the biggest issues here. That's something Cisco needs to improve because organizations are looking at reducing their hardware footprint. It's unfortunate that ISE is such a resource-intensive application to begin with. As it's not a properly virtualized application, you need to rely on physical hardware to get the best performance.

The CapEx cost is high. When it comes to operational expenditure, it all depends on the features you're using. They have their tiers, and it all depends on the features you're using. The basic tier, which is where most of the functionality is, is relatively quite cheap. But if you're using some advanced use cases, you need to go to their higher tiers. So, I'm not too worried about operations costs. You need to buy support for the hardware: you need space, power, and cooling for the hardware-side. All of that adds up. So, that all comes down to the product design and they need to make sure it's properly scalable and it's truly virtualized going forward.

We've evaluated other products, for example, Aruba ClearPass. There's another product, Forescout, but the use case is a bit different.

When it comes to dot1x authentication, I think it's ISE and Aruba ClearPass. Forescout also comes into the next space, but the use case is a bit different.

We prefer ISE because, I think if you're using Cisco devices, it really kind of integrates your ecosystem — that's why we prefer ISE. When it comes to NAC or dot1x products, from a feature standpoint, ISE has had that development now for 10 to 11 years. So, we've seen the product mature over time. And right now it's a pretty stable and functional product. It has a lot of features as well. So, I think the decision is mainly kind of driven by the fact that the rest of the ecosystem is Cisco as well. From a uniform figure standpoint, the other product is probably the industry leader at this point in time for network admission control.

The main advice would be in terms of upfront design — this is where a lot of people get it very wrong. Depending on the platforms you choose, there are restrictions and limitations on how many users. We've got various nodes, so how many nodes you can implement, etc. Also, latency considerations must be taken into account; especially if you're deploying it across geographically dispersed regions. The main advice would be to get the design right. Because given that directly interferes with the network, if you don't get your design right it could be disruptive to the network. Once you've got the proper design in place and that translates into a bit of material, the implementation, you can always figure it out. Getting it right, upfront, is the most important thing.

Overall, I would give ISE a rating of eight out of ten. I don't want to give it a 10 out of 10 because of all the design issues. There is definitely room for improvement, but overall out there in the market, I think it's one of the best products. It has a good ecosystem. It integrates well with Cisco devices, but it also integrates with third-party solutions if you have to do that. It's based on open standards, and we've seen the ecosystem grow over the years. So, they're doing a good job in terms of growing the ecosystem and making sure ISE can work with other products, but there's definitely room for improvement on the product design itself — on monitoring, on analytics. 

The way we can trust this solution is the most valuable. We have no issue with this product. It is a competitive product. You need to have a very good and deep knowledge of the product to take the full benefits of all the features, but it is a good product.

It is too complex. It should be easy to use. We are not such a big team. We only have three engineers to work with this, and we don't use all of the functionality of the product. Its range of functionality is too wide for us, and this is the reason why we are thinking of switching to a more simple product. We have shortlisted a Microsoft solution. We have a big footprint for Microsoft products, especially in security. As a global strategy, we try to leverage to the maximum what is possible around Microsoft.

This product was installed before I joined this company. It would be six years or something like that. We are probably two versions behind the latest one.

It is stable.

Their technical support is good. Cisco support is good.

I was not there, but I think the company had a services company that helped them in implementing it. It was easy because we only had to give them the requirements and their engineers did it for us. After they finished their mission, we started to deal with this solution, but it is too complex for a company of our size.

Its price is probably good if you use all of its features and functionalities to protect your environment. If you use only a part of the functionality, its price is too high. It is just a question of value and the functionality you use.

I would advise others to make sure that you have the knowledge of this solution to get the full benefits of all the features, and you are able to use it on a daily basis.

I would rate Cisco ISE a six out of ten. Its functionality is too wide for our company. 

We use ISE for security group tagging in terms of guests and visitors who access the network to make sure that they actually go through this to control their privilege access to ensure they don't actually access the internal network, etc. 

Our clients use ISE as a form of security policy management so that users and devices between the wired, wireless, and VPN connections to the corporate network, can be managed accordingly.

Take a house for example. Sometimes you need to access a room via a certain keyhole, so you use a key that is unique to that door. With ISE, you can segment this process in terms of policy management based on the security tag. You actually grant the user access based on the tagging.

That's the IT trend — saving a lot on operating costs to manage the different users and access methods.

Within our company, we have roughly 200 employees using this solution.

My clients are always talking about the segregation capabilities. Segmentation refers to how you can actually segregate employee and non-employee client access. 

They have recently made a lot of improvements. My clients don't have much to complain about — it's a one-stop-shop.

It should be virtualized because many people have begun migrating to the cloud. They should offer a hybrid version. 

It's stable but there's a limitation of up to 200,000 users. If you have a big number of users, then you have to customize the installation process. 

It's only scalable up to 20,000 users. 

I would say Cisco's support has been getting worse. I think they outsource a lot of skillsets.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. They actually provide a lot of help to IT administrators which makes setting it up rather easy.

The whole setup takes about three days because you need to basically configure the network, test the configuration, and then you need to cut over to production. 

Our customers definitely see a return on their investment with this solution.

I think licensing costs roughly $2,000 a year. ISE is more expensive than Network Access Control.

If you wish to use ISE, you must have a deep understanding of IT. If you don't, setting it up properly will be very complex.

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

We primarily use the solution for user authentication and wireless segmentation of users for actual radius purposes.

The actual radius is the most valuable aspect of the solution. We need to have a centric solution either on MarTech X and for the wireless user authentication. We were mainly on Cisco and we continue to use them. However, this is the time period for a refresh as the five-year lifespan is completed. We may look for other options.

Technical support is okay.

The solution is not so user-friendly. It's very difficult to navigate through different manuals. The documentation should be simplified so that it is easier to understand.

It would take time for a beginner to understand and familiarize themselves with the solution. There's a bit of a learning curve.

Cisco ISE is not very stable. They could work on that aspect. 

We'd like the pricing to be better.

The product is not easily scalable.

Currently, if you want to do something with authentication, you need to have an additional document agent, however, these are short on all Microsoft endpoints. We then need to come up with some alternate options so that I don't have to modify any native applications on it. By default, Windows should be able to support and onboard the devices. Right now I need to have a Cisco AnyConnect as an agent to be deployed for authentication.

I've been using the solution for over five years at this point. It's been a while.

The stability of the solution needs to be improved. It's not ideal. It's lacking overall. If we have five or six items activated, the box shakes and we're scared to touch anything. When we do have to reconfigure things, it's a nightmare as it can go down and it can take us a day or two to sort things out.

In terms of scalability, it needs to be reactivated, which means that I need to add more nodes. It's got its own design limitations. We had only a two-node deployment in it. We need to add more hardware and we need to reduce so many things. It's not an easy option to scale this hardware. Scaling, in general, is very difficult.

We have roughly 9,000 users on this product currently.

Technical support is fine. However, we may need to depend on support to resolve some of our many issues. We need to spend an enormous amount of time with them and to explain so much stuff. It would be easier if we could troubleshoot the issue ourselves or if the solution was more reliable.

I don't know about other alternative products. I don't have any experience with other alternative products. I've only ever used Cisco ISE.

The solution's initial setup can be a bit complex as there are so many features that are available. It all depends, however, upon which one you want to activate. In our case, we have five or six activated and the box always shakes. It's not stable. So my colleagues are always afraid to touch the box. If it is working well and good, you don't touch it, and we don't reconfigure it. In cases where we encounter any issues, it's a nightmare and we need to spend a minimum of twenty-four to forty-eight hours to recover everything.

We pay a fee based on a subscription model.

The pricing could always be better.

I've been looking at evaluating Aruba's Clearpass as a potential replacement option for this solution. I haven't gotten too far into my research, however. I'm looking for a solution that's scalable and easy to use.

My advice to Cisco would be to simplify as much as possible so that a normal IT guy can understand the CCD and set it up. If they can simplify the manuals, navigation, and documentation, it would be nice. It will always be difficult for a beginner, however, to, rearrange or design the network.

I would rate the solution five out of ten.

The company implemented the solution to keep track of wired and wireless devices.

One of the most important features is the authentication security for the individual connection to the network through their computer or laptop. The solution is very complete overall.

There should be better documentation on the implementation of the solution. I learned how to implement it from watching videos. I felt the documentation was too complicated and I also learn better from watching videos.

In my experience, there needs to be better documentation for firewall integration as well, we had some trouble early on.

I have been using the solution over the last year.

A co-worker of mine had some issues with the solution crashing unexpectantly or some processes went down. 

We are using the solution with around 200 people and we had no problems with scalability. Most of our clients are small businesses.

The customer server was great but it would have been better for me if they had support in other languages such as Spanish. It was difficult for me to communicate in English.

The setup was easy for this solution.

We implemented the solution.

There are other cheaper options available.

We did evaluate Aruba ClearPass before the client picked Cisco ISE. I had suggested ClearPass because it was cheaper but the client decided to go with Cisco regardless.

Our clients and my company plan to continue the use of the solution in the future.

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a ten out of ten.

The .1x authentication schema is the most valuable aspect of the solution. It makes it possible to have multiple policies and it can still adapt to us. We can authenticate and calculate our trajectory and so on. The policy is very easy to put in place. It's got to be easy due to the fact that we have more than 200,000 devices.

The implementation is very simple.

The web interface needs improvement. The new web interface that they have is not as easy to manage and we find it to be very slow.

The solution might require two authentications. They should make a new authentication to authenticate both the device and the users. Right now, we are authenticating the PC, the workstation, but not as a user. A good addition would be to authenticate the user separately to get more information.

I've been using the solution for five years.

The solution is stable. I haven't witnessed bugs or glitches. It doesn't freeze or crash. It's reliable.

The solution is quite scalable.

We started with two clients and we've since scaled up to 20 clients.

Cisco ISE was the first full solution we've used.

The initial setup wasn't complex for us. We found the process of implementing the solution very straightforward.

For our organization, in terms of deployment, the first implementation took one month, and for the global implementation took six months.

For maintenance, a company needs one or two people to handle it, one of which should be full-time.

The pricing is okay. It's reasonable for functionality, however, if you're going to implement it as a full-stack with Cisco Connect, and a work station, and so on, it's very high.

I'd advise other companies to really take care in regards to the network devices that they want to authenticate. 

For most of the cases, the biggest rooms are the easiest to manage, however, the smallest ones require specific implementation in all devices. It is very tricky due to the fact that you are obliged to put in place the rules that are not so secure and that's why it's very important to know what devices are connected on the network.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We have two servers and they're both VMs. Every network system is issued a certificate and each device coming onto the network has to be on the domain with an active AD user logging into it. It needs an up-to-date AMP, which is our Cisco malware and virus scan product and it also needs to have the most current Microsoft security updates and the three layers that we're using: The core VPN, the Network Access Manager and the ISE profiler. When it goes through all those different things on every port on the switch, there are commands for it to be able to go through an ACL so it knows what users are there, what server, and what devices have been put onto the domain. It can verify all that.

The user can then proceed on to the network. We've set it so that regular users are VLAN'd off and can only see the data network through ISE and are blocked from seeing the rest of the network. Depending on the department needs or other factors, we have cameras for security which are on a different VLAN, and they can see those. We also have something for O&M where the AC guy can see the AC equipment, and we can prevent all the VLAN's from being viewed by everybody.

We are customers of Cisco and I'm the infrastructure and Cyber security manager.

The solution cuts down on the repercussions of getting malware or ransomware which happened to us four years ago. We regularly took very aggressive snapshots and we were able to recover in an hour and 20 minutes without any loss of data.

Because we have a large database and 4,000 network devices, the solution can lag a bit when you're running updates or different things because of the fact that it's so big and it is such a resource hog. But the biggest problem we've encountered is that it finds errors or people are rejected or not authenticated without a clear explanation as to why. A second issue is that we're currently on 2.4 and Cisco's gold standard now is 2.7. They are a little slow with that.

I'd really like the solution to dive down a little deeper when something's not profiling. As it stands now, you have to go through and search what hasn't profiled. Microsoft, for example, gives you a direction to look at and will even be specific sometimes and tell you there is a password error, or the password hasn't been updated, or it's not meeting the policy and that's why it won't let it through. Those are very helpful because you know exactly what's required to solve a problem. 

Cisco is getting better with it, but they fail in some areas because of a network connectivity issue, or it's not getting DCAP quick enough and it fails. Those things would be more helpful to understand when it's going through, so you are able to triage it a little better. I mean, it does point you in a direction, but sometimes you have to dig a lot deeper to find the right direction and figure out what kept it from profiling. One big issue we've discovered is that people are not rebooting their machines or powering them off at night. We're trying to ensure that is done by sticking messages on screens.

I've been using this solution for the past two years. 

ISE is pretty stable. If it does have an issue then you need to call TAC and work through the bug in it. They are very responsive and very quick to help us eliminate the issue and also come up with a plan, such as how to move forward with additional issues or different things that are coming down the pipe with Cisco ISE. When you're talking to them, you feel like they are a partner and not just a disconnected entity.

The technical support is excellent, I would rate them very highly.

The initial setup is very complex. You have to go in and manually add in all the network devices, as far as all the switches, access points are concerned. You have to go port by port and add in codes and conditions and you have to go switch by switch and add in codes and conditions. You start out with a monitor mode and then go to an impact mode and then you go towards total lockdown. Implementation took us about 18 months. We rolled it out in short bursts because we have a very small IT team and we had a consultant company come in and work with us on installing it. A lot of it was knowledge transfer from them to us.

Our consultant was Cycorp, their main focus is network security. They are a sister Cisco partner, and we had one of their CCIE's come out and help implement everything. The gentleman at the top of the CCIE, was a former Cisco employee and a beta tester for ISE. Now that we have it in, I feel it's pretty much a game changer on locking down our network so that we're not penetrated from inside or outside because everything going through the VPN has to meet a certain standard.

We did a five year deal and it was very reasonable. I think for the Avast virus scan, I think we were paying $95 a machine for five years, which nobody else could touch. And that includes all updates, technical support, etc. From the ISE side, I'm not really sure what it costs because it was all encompassed in equipment we were buying and the ISE and the AMP and the open DNS. I know that it was not more expensive than any of the things we had looked at with HP or BMC or other places. It was much more cost effective.

We have looked at other products but we are a Cisco shop so having a Cisco product rides very easy on all our switches, our access points, and our Cisco servers. I believe it's the same for other companies such as HP. It's also a priority for them that the solution works better with HP switches. Given that we weren't going to change our switches, we really needed to focus on something that was going to work well with our environment.

The important thing is to have a good game plan going into it. Prep is key for everything going on with ISE. The more stuff you have prepped and the more understanding that you have upfront of how it goes through and how it behaves, the better off you are.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.