Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

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.

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.

We use it to ensure that any device that connects to our network or wireless environment is a company-owned asset and has all the security certificates. We aren't doing too much remediation. We just identify whether it's one of our assets and whether it's allowed.

In our company, we have a lot of remote workers. Knowing that even devices that are coming through a VPN comply with our policies, whether they're in the office or they're remote, face the same level of scrutiny is a benefit to our company.

We can set as in-depth alerts as we want to. We can set up an alert through email, text, etc.

It has helped to improve our cybersecurity resilience. It helps to ensure that all devices meet the patching and certificate requirements.

It's keeping our company safe from rogue devices connecting to our network. From a security standpoint, there's peace of mind knowing that every device that connects is a good one.

The upgrades could be better. Every time we try to do an upgrade, we have problems. It's a pain.

I've only been with the company for six months, but they adopted Cisco ISE about three to five years ago.

Support has always been good. Overall, I'd rate them an eight out of ten. Sometimes it feels that their first-level support hasn't been trained in-depth.

Positive

We have redundant solutions across all of our data centers, policy nodes, and authentication nodes. As far as I know, we started off in a small deployment with our wireless. We profiled our devices to ensure that they belonged to our companies before we let them access, and then from there, we expanded into profiling wired ports as well, so we started very small and then moved to a larger solution.

In terms of our plans to increase its usage, we may use Cisco ISE in different ways, but the number of nodes that we have will probably stay the same. With version 2, we're moving more of our deployment to the cloud, so we'll move from the on-premise solution to the cloud. We've already started the process. We have some nodes built in the cloud, and we just have to move the production and then remove our on-prem. We're using Oracle Cloud for our highest deployments. It will be fully cloud.

We've seen a return on investment from the security aspect.

I'd advise starting just the way we did. Start small because there are a lot of use cases of Cisco ISE. If you try to do it all at once, you might be disappointed, so start small and pick an area that you'd like to focus on, get that piece done, and then go from there. 

It hasn't really helped to free up our IT staff for other projects. It also hasn't helped us consolidate any tools. 

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

We mainly use it for endpoint security.

Cisco ISE has made our network more secure. 

It has saved the time of our security team. I can't say how much time it has saved because I'm on the network side, but I'd imagine it has saved quite a bit of time. It lets them sleep better at night.

It does a good job of securing our infrastructure from end to end so that we can detect and remediate threats, but I don't have a similar product to compare.

It hasn't helped to consolidate any tools. The customer is in the process of migrating from their current ACS to ISE. When they've done that, we'll consolidate that piece. This consolidation would provide a single pane of management versus multiple tools.

I'd imagine it has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience, but the security team would know more about it.

The ability to allow or deny hosts onto the network is valuable. It provides great security to the network environment.

It could be more intuitive in terms of how to configure the policies.

I've been using Cisco ISE for four years.

It's very stable.

It's very scalable. We have deployed it globally.

Their support is good. I'd rate them a seven out of ten.

Neutral

We didn't use any other solution previously. We went for Cisco ISE because we're a Cisco shop. It helps to have one vendor for network management and security.

Cisco's Professional services did the installation. I wasn't involved in its installation, but they did a pretty good job.

I'd imagine we have seen an ROI, but I'm not involved in the pricing or purchasing. The security it provides gives peace of mind. That's a good return.

My advice would be to do an evaluation of the product and purchase it.

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

We use it for Cisco device TACACS authentication and .1X security. 

We have a better state of mind that we're secure, and we don't have unauthorized devices accessing the network. In a financial institution, we want to keep everything as secure as possible. We don't want anything plugged in.

It has helped to consolidate tools. We had arpwatch monitoring, which we no longer have to use, and then TACACS is securing the network. We didn't have a tool before, so that added a layer of security for us.

It has improved our cybersecurity resilience. We have authentication logging for everything that's authenticated or denied. We use a Splunk forwarder. We get notifications if something is denied for authentication. 

TACACS and .1X security are the most valuable features. TACACS acts for user control, so no one can authenticate to our network devices, and .1X is to validate that unauthorized devices are plugged into our network.

Its user interface could be better. It's not bad. They've just redesigned the whole user interface. It's not terribly difficult. The drop-down menus are easy to use. However, when you're looking for some things in the user interface, it takes a minute to find where you were prior.

I've been using Cisco ISE for a year.

Its stability is great.

Its scalability is also great. We have 350 users. 

Their support is excellent. I've opened two support tickets so far, and they were able to remediate the issue within a few hours.

It's fairly difficult. We have third-party support to assist with the setup.

Our setup is on-prem and virtual in Azure. 

It was a third-party support, not a reseller.

It's a very good tool for security. It's a lot of work to initially set up, but once it's set up, it's pretty easy to use.

It hasn't yet saved the time of our IT staff. It's still fairly new, so we haven't had much time to use the product fully. It has only been a year since we started using it, so it's still pretty new.

Overall, I'd rate Cisco ISE a nine 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.

We have been authenticating our company's employees and certifying that they are in compliance. We have to certify our employees in regards to compliance, having all the necessary protections in our infrastructure for their endpoints, notebooks, laptops, and mobile phones.

We have implemented it across the entire company in every area and department at every single level of our organization.

So far, it has been on-premises. We are still working to expand it to integrate with multiple cloud providers, like AWS.

We have become more reliable because we do not have any vulnerabilities coming into our network, which is important since a lot of employees are using their own endpoints to connect to our infrastructure.

Every other time that we have a new employee, we need to make sure they have been using the latest version of the solution in order to connect to our infrastructure.

We have made our company more secure. As an IT guy, I have gained more importance to my company.

It is more about the features related to Apex. This is part of the solution where we can deep dive into each employees' usage according to our infrastructure needs.

There are a lot of integrations available with multiple vendors. This has made the solution easier to work with.

We use the management platform, which makes it easy for our IT to access and manage. 

We have been working with it for about 10 years.

If you have someone taking care of it, it can be quite easy to manage the solution. Otherwise, if you don't look after it and take care of it day-to-day, then it will become more complex to run. However, if you have someone taking care of it, maintenance is not that difficult.

The scalability is good and quite easy to do. If you have the licenses, then anything is possible.

We worked with customers. The last one that we worked with had 10,000 licenses, i.e., 10,000 endpoints. We started working with the corporate office, then we replicate to the distribution centers.

As an IT integrator, it is quite easy to work with their technical support. We have the correct people to deploy it as well as receive good support from the Cisco Technical Assistance Center. I would rate the support as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We have been using ISE for a while. We didn't have another solution beforehand.

We had to do some labs beforehand, in order not to breach the environment. The deployment was not too complex.

When we work with customers, it takes four or five hours. We start with a specific environment, then we replicate to other areas.

We are a reseller. My professional services implemented it, which includes a tech lead, engineer, senior engineer, and project manager to work with the solution.

It is an easy solution to implement with the correct partner.

It is difficult to measure security breaches, but since we have not been attacked so far, it has paid for itself over the years.

We worked with Fortinet to look at their solution, but ISE was more reliable and had more integration with our product vendors. Also, it had a more affordable cost.

When compared with other vendors, like Forescout, for what we need, ISE has been more usable and accessible.

Learn about the solution, then evaluate what devices it would be implemented with. I would amalgamate the devices and their versions with a systems integrator or partner who already has experience and will try only to replicate it, not to reinvent the wheel.

Part of our journey is getting everybody connected to the infrastructure and trying to avoid any breaches. We don't want to be vulnerable.

I would rate the solution as 10 out of 10.

We use it for Community WiFi and TACACS authentication. It is service provider authentication, both for the core infrastructure and Community WiFi.

We were looking to solve captive portal and centralized authentication with Cisco ISE.

It has allowed us to pull in multiple authentication databases, then centralize them into a captive portal system.

It is important for our organization that the solution considers all resources to be external. It treats them with minimum trust.

Integration is a big factor. That has really been the driving force behind it.

Documentation is probably the worst part of the software.

I have been using it for about five years.

It is very stable. I would rate the stability as 10 out of 10.

We don't use its scalability. I would rate it as five out of 10.

The technical support is good. I would rate them as six out of 10.

Neutral

We previously used an open-source solution. We switched for vendor support and scalability.

We don't monetize this solution.

It is fair.

We did not evaluate other options.

It is worth checking out the integration that it provides. It is a strong platform.

Cybersecurity resilience has not been that important for our organization.

I would rate ISE as eight out of 10. It does exactly what it is supposed to do without much issue.

Our use case is managing access to network devices for IT as well as end-users. Making that seamless is the challenge we were looking to handle.

ISE made implementation and connecting things easy.

It does a good job of establishing trust for each access request, no matter the source. It's also very effective at helping with the distributed network and at securing access.

The UI and UX could be more seamless and easier to use.

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

The stability of the solution is pretty good. I've only had a couple of issues.

I've never tried to scale it up.

We have it deployed in multiple locations with users across the US and Canada.

I have never used the technical support.

It's done the job that we put it in place to do.

We use it as our complete NAC solution for both on the wire and wireless as well as guest wireless access and SGTs.

We have five hospitals. We have two service policy nodes at every hospital. We have a deployment at every hospital site.

We are a healthcare department. We deal with a lot of PHI so ISE is important. It is an integral part of keeping PHI safe.

The solution has helped with safety and keeping people who shouldn't be on our network off our network.

Cisco ISE works very well for establishing trust for every access request when it is deployed and running correctly. It is a great product. It does what it is supposed to do.

We know what is on our network because ISE is able to tell us.

The guest wireless works pretty smoothly. The SGTs came in very handy when we had to segregate traffic away from our network, even though it is part of our network. 

The SGT function would probably be the most used. This is mainly because we have a lot of vendors on our campuses but we need to keep them from seeing the traffic and being able to touch other areas of our network. Being able to use SGTs kind of keeps them in their own little lane away from us.

When it is deployed correctly, it is very helpful. It runs smoothly. It is just integrable to what we do.

I would definitely improve the deployment and maybe a little bit of the support. Our first exposure to ISE had a lot of issues. However, I have noticed as we have been implementing patches and upgrades that it has gotten a lot better.

I have been using it for about four years.

With patches and a little bit of babysitting, it is totally stable now.

It is easily scalable.

The technical support is phenomenal. I have called and opened up a ton of tech cases. Eventually, you get the right engineer who can solve all your problems. I would rate them as eight or nine out of 10. It has gotten a lot better. If someone asked me about support two or three years ago, I would have probably given them five out of 10.

Positive

We didn't use a solution before ISE.

We have seen ROI. It has done its job. It has protected us when we needed it to.

Make sure you have everything ready, including all your information. Make sure you know what you will profile and what will come on your network.

Get hardware nodes versus the VMs.

You definitely want resilience. You want to keep everything protected, especially in the day and age that we live in now. Information is power. Keeping our customers' and patients' information safe is our number one priority.

I would rate it as nine out of 10 because it has gotten better. I have seen it at its worst. Now, it is running a lot better. So, I have a better opinion of it than I did.