Symantec Siteminder needs to have adaptive authentication and multi-factor authentication as integrated features. Currently, multi-factor authentication is available as a separate solution, and it should be a part of Symantec Siteminder without requiring the installation of another component. Other competitors include it as one component inside the single sign-on solution.
I need to check the latest documentation, however, being able to expand or at least communicate with other identity providers to perform handshakes would be great. While I have some integration with a few major providers, support for more would be advantageous.
The maintenance cost has increased significantly, and we are concerned about this. We also need to consider the customization or development required for web authentication when using Active Directory.
Symantec SiteMinder is not easy to set up and maintain at an infrastructure level. You have to follow multiple steps to set up your infrastructure, which is dependent on a database and certificate.
It doesn't have a feature for... or maybe it has, but for modern authentication, like OAuth or OIDC. We haven't utilized that portion; we haven't really looked at it because our priority is LDAP integration. Modern authentication, like SAML-based or OAuth. But in our case with SiteMinder, we haven't utilized that portion of the feature. In future releases, I would like to see maybe some more modern authentication, OAuth, OIDC, some of these plus identity mapping… It probably already has some of this, but we would want to ask for more identity mapping. Also, development of support and compatibility to configure these, like with container-based deployments like Docker.
Sr IAM/PAM Engineer at a retailer with 10,001+ employees
Real User
2021-12-15T02:32:00Z
Dec 15, 2021
An area Siteminder could improve on is that there are a few limitations, in terms of new protocols for OpenID. If I want to have different scopes, the features are limited. They also do not have APIs exposed, which is a major drawback. API is a feature I would like to see included in the next release.
The performance could be better. The support could be faster. Sometimes when your customer has a legacy application and they want to make a single sign-on, you cannot do it with SiteMinder. The solution doesn't support client-based Java. You do need to be pretty comfortable with the product in order to use it. The product needs to invest in enhancements. They are not innovating anything lately. The competition is beginning to pull ahead of them and they are getting left behind. The cost of the product is a bit high.
Middleware System Engineer at a insurance company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2020-10-19T09:33:00Z
Oct 19, 2020
Some of the new protocols, like OAuth 2.0, could be improved. It would be nice to see a better cloud-based solution that's both easy and accessible for all organizations.
Assistant General Manager at Tata Consultancy Services
Real User
2020-01-26T09:26:00Z
Jan 26, 2020
Since we're in the early stages of examining the solution, it's hard to predict what might be lacking. We're currently unable to find information about if the solution can do a full implementation with SQL. Some better and more accessible documentation for new users or those curious about the product would be helpful. We want to implement a simple application. Currently, from what we're finding, we're not sure if it would work the way we need it to.
* The GUIs are not very clear, especially when integrating with other products from CA. * Like CA IDM, there can be challenges. One needs to know that they have great hands-on on their app servers to understand the logic and deploy it accordingly. * There were challenges with version compatibility, and this is something that I did not like. This all happened during the second phase while trying out various integrations.
I think the future release is, if you ask me, I think they have done a lot in the new release, especially the front end. The front end was not as good. CA did a good job in doing it, especially when I look at the new identity suite. They have done a good job in changing the overall look and feel. This is actually what the customer was looking for. The look and feel was not good in the earlier product. It's a journey, so we just completed one of the requirements for the customer. CA has reporting at the moment. With the reporting, every particular segmented product has a reporting engine. I would like to see centralized reporting for all of them together. If an enterprise customer has all of these three or four modules for security, he will get consolidated reporting. A problem we had with the customer was, at the moment, we were asked, “Are you able to integrate these products together?” Were we able to get the requirement done for the customer, as a business requirement? The reporting side we were unable to do it out-of-the-box. If CA consolidates the reporting for all three together, it may be easier. I'm not sure, but it may be easier.
Symantec® SiteMinder is designed to secure the modern enterprise through a unified access management platform that applies the appropriate authentication mechanism to positively identify users; provides single sign-on and identity federation for seamless access to any application; enforces granular security policies to stop unauthorized access to sensitive resources; and monitors and manages the entire user session to prevent session hijacking. Finally, Symantec SiteMinder is battle-tested...
Symantec Siteminder needs to have adaptive authentication and multi-factor authentication as integrated features. Currently, multi-factor authentication is available as a separate solution, and it should be a part of Symantec Siteminder without requiring the installation of another component. Other competitors include it as one component inside the single sign-on solution.
I need to check the latest documentation, however, being able to expand or at least communicate with other identity providers to perform handshakes would be great. While I have some integration with a few major providers, support for more would be advantageous.
The maintenance cost has increased significantly, and we are concerned about this. We also need to consider the customization or development required for web authentication when using Active Directory.
The support team could work on their response time and overall competence.
Symantec SiteMinder is not easy to set up and maintain at an infrastructure level. You have to follow multiple steps to set up your infrastructure, which is dependent on a database and certificate.
It doesn't have a feature for... or maybe it has, but for modern authentication, like OAuth or OIDC. We haven't utilized that portion; we haven't really looked at it because our priority is LDAP integration. Modern authentication, like SAML-based or OAuth. But in our case with SiteMinder, we haven't utilized that portion of the feature. In future releases, I would like to see maybe some more modern authentication, OAuth, OIDC, some of these plus identity mapping… It probably already has some of this, but we would want to ask for more identity mapping. Also, development of support and compatibility to configure these, like with container-based deployments like Docker.
An area Siteminder could improve on is that there are a few limitations, in terms of new protocols for OpenID. If I want to have different scopes, the features are limited. They also do not have APIs exposed, which is a major drawback. API is a feature I would like to see included in the next release.
The performance could be better. The support could be faster. Sometimes when your customer has a legacy application and they want to make a single sign-on, you cannot do it with SiteMinder. The solution doesn't support client-based Java. You do need to be pretty comfortable with the product in order to use it. The product needs to invest in enhancements. They are not innovating anything lately. The competition is beginning to pull ahead of them and they are getting left behind. The cost of the product is a bit high.
Some of the new protocols, like OAuth 2.0, could be improved. It would be nice to see a better cloud-based solution that's both easy and accessible for all organizations.
Since we're in the early stages of examining the solution, it's hard to predict what might be lacking. We're currently unable to find information about if the solution can do a full implementation with SQL. Some better and more accessible documentation for new users or those curious about the product would be helpful. We want to implement a simple application. Currently, from what we're finding, we're not sure if it would work the way we need it to.
To add more value to this solution it needs to be more user-friendly. This is what is really needed in the next release of this product.
* The GUIs are not very clear, especially when integrating with other products from CA. * Like CA IDM, there can be challenges. One needs to know that they have great hands-on on their app servers to understand the logic and deploy it accordingly. * There were challenges with version compatibility, and this is something that I did not like. This all happened during the second phase while trying out various integrations.
I think the future release is, if you ask me, I think they have done a lot in the new release, especially the front end. The front end was not as good. CA did a good job in doing it, especially when I look at the new identity suite. They have done a good job in changing the overall look and feel. This is actually what the customer was looking for. The look and feel was not good in the earlier product. It's a journey, so we just completed one of the requirements for the customer. CA has reporting at the moment. With the reporting, every particular segmented product has a reporting engine. I would like to see centralized reporting for all of them together. If an enterprise customer has all of these three or four modules for security, he will get consolidated reporting. A problem we had with the customer was, at the moment, we were asked, “Are you able to integrate these products together?” Were we able to get the requirement done for the customer, as a business requirement? The reporting side we were unable to do it out-of-the-box. If CA consolidates the reporting for all three together, it may be easier. I'm not sure, but it may be easier.