Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

We use this solution to provide wireless for our residence halls and guest networks. We're also a college that works primarily off of iPads, so we have to be able to keep resident hall activity off of the network so that students can do their homework and class activities. We use the Services Engine to authorize all of them.

The biggest value of ISE is that it can get so granular with gaming systems, versus IoT and BYOD.

I'd like to see an easier way to upgrade to larger versions, as well as more best practices that are easier to locate on their support page.

I have had a very good impression of its stability.

We're actually upgrading right now from a small version to a medium-sized one. It's not as simple as I'd like it to be for scalability, but it's still working well.

We were very late adopters in the education arena of wireless. We didn't adopt until about five years ago. We had a great relationship with our partner and got to see this demo several times. It was really good.

The initial setup was complex.

The name of the company at the time was MSN but they've been recently purchased. The engineers did a really good job. I would have liked a greater share of knowledge at the time, but they did a great job in implementing a complex situation.

Cisco was the only one that we evaluated. There was also Aruba, but Cisco was really the top choice.

My advice to someone considering this solution would be to seek the most comprehensive solution for residence halls.

I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I would like the flow of authentication and authorization metrics to be easier to see.

We use it for the TACACS authentication, for administrator login to network devices, and the RADIUS service for VPN and wireless authentication.

Initially, we were looking for a single sign-on for administrators to log in to every network device, but we also wanted a good way to control remote user access for logging in. Later we started using it for VPN and wireless.

It gives us a better way to authenticate users. It helps us identify a user with their device to establish trust. When a remote user is trying to access network resources, we need to find out who they are and where they want to go and make an appropriate decision about where they can and cannot go.

Resilience in cyber security is very important. Without security, nothing else can happen.

The TACACS and RADIUS have been the most valuable features so far.

Cisco ISE has almost all the features we are looking for now, but sometimes the configuration, such as the conditions, is a little difficult to understand and not so easy to navigate.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for a few years.

It is stable.

They have resolved my issues, but sometimes they have been slow.

Positive

We used to use Cisco ACS and that evolved to Cisco ISE.

The initial deployment was not a process that was easy to understand. But after I completed it, looking back, I see it was reasonable. It's just hard to understand upfront. There is a steep learning curve.

I did the migration too late, so I couldn't do a direct migration and that meant I had to kind of rebuild it.

Security is something we need, but I don't think that there is a return on investment. It causes more delays to the regular workflow.

The Essentials licensing is reasonable, but I would like the Premier version to be perpetual instead of a subscription.

An idea we are looking into is associating it with the MAC address table, so that approved devices can log in to the more restricted network.

My advice is to attend training before going for it. Otherwise, it will not be easy to understand. Each product, from ACS to ISE, does similar things, but they do them in different ways.

I rate Cisco ISE a nine out of 10. If it could become a little bit easier to understand that would help.

We use this solution for network security.

The most valuable features are the ability to retrieve information about Active Directory user names, viewing the log files to see which MAC address tried to connect with the created SSIDs, portal designing for your company, hotspot tools, and creating network rules for WiFi access.

The interface could be more user-friendly and the ability to apply rules to MAC addresses, for example, if I wanted to allow a certain MAC address access at a particular time I cannot make this adjustment.

In an upcoming release, they could improve by providing rule-based bandwidth consumption, bring your own device (BYOD) need to be more mature, and the reports could be more user-friendly.

I have been using this solution for approximately four years.

The solution is stable.

The controller has to manage a certain number of access points and we did not see any problems with the scalability. It is able to handle more access points than we need it for.

We do not have experience with The technical support from Cisco directly because the technical support we receive is from our partners which they have been excellent.

We have used 3Com wireless controllers previously.

We used Cisco partners to do the implementation of the solution.

Recently, I have evaluated Aruba solutions and I found them to be better than Cisco. There is room for improvement, Cisco can do better.

When deciding to implement this solution it is a good idea to assess and define the requirements to determine whether there is a need for this solution. It is important to know what you can use from it. You can have a WiFi environment without the need for a Cisco ISE. This solution has advanced security that might not be needed for your use case. Be sure about your needs.

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

One of the use cases was the certificate-based authentication for the endpoints. All the laptops and mobiles are embedded with certificates and once they get authenticated, then only they would be able to connect to the LAN. 

The other use case was the NAC use case wherein the integrity of the laptops and mobile and such were checked before the scan. They fulfill the policy requirements and then they are able to connect to the network.

The third use case was the consolidated access control management for all the network devices and security devices. 

It's flexible and stable. It's been good as a standard environment to run.

It was implemented in my last organization and we used it for three years. We are evaluating and will be implementing it in a couple of months at my current organization. 

It is stable and scalable. We have 5,000 to 6,000 users. 

Technical support is good because the partner is quite competent so we have all the support that is required.

The initial setup was a little bit complex. It's not that simple because it requires a lot of prerequisites for the solution to get a hold on. So the prerequisites and then onboarding all this like the landscape of endpoints was quite tedious. That was no surprise, because this is something which would be with other products as well. It took a long time for the implementation, but it's been rock stable now.

The deployment took six to seven months. 

We had consultants and we had a partner for the deployment. The system integrator was involved with the roll out.

The management part is much smoother. It takes care of all the costs across branded devices as well, so that it is a single panel we can manage all the end-to-end entry devices as well. That's something would be really good for Cisco ISE product.

I would recommend Cisco ISE. I would rate it an eight out of ten. I would like it to be more stable. 

To be clear, I'm not an expert in networking, so I'm pretty much like a user.

I really like the guest WiFi. Those kinds of features are pretty convenient. When I have a guest in the form of a third party, I can grant access to the guest for a certain period of time and have a dynamic password generated. It's great.

The user experience of the solution is great. It's a very transparent system.

As I treat the system basically as a user would, and am not overly technical, I can't say what features, if any, the solution is missing.

I'm working from China currently and the only real issue is that, within the country, there's some concern around Cisco and its ability to offer the solution for the long term. As the United States has banned the Huawei version in their country, we feel there may be retaliation in ours and Cisco will get banned as a countermeasure from the government. The future of Cisco in China is in question. Our local partners are worried about the situation.

To be perfectly frank, I'm unsure of the exact amount of time we've used the solution. It's been a number of years. I've basically lost count.

The stability, from a users' perspective, is very good. I haven't encountered any issues before, and we've used it for quite a long time. It doesn't freeze. It doesn't crash. There aren't bugs or glitches. It's pretty reliable overall.

I'm not sure how many users are on the solution ultimately. Our reach is pretty global. I'm not with the network team, so I can't speak to the ability for the solution to scale.

As I'm not a member of the network team, I've never had to reach out to technical support. I don't know if they do or how often or how Cisco's technical support ultimately is. I've never dealt with them directly. I can't speak to the quality of their service.

I'm not a member of the network team, so I didn't participate in the implementation process. I can't speak to how straightforward or complex it was.

We're just a customer. We're in the manufacturing industry, not IT. We don't have a business relationship with IBM.

We try to keep up with the latest upgrades, therefore, I believe we are using the latest version of the solution.

From a non-technical user-based standpoint, I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

I'd recommend it, however, there is this ongoing concern in China at this time that Cisco could get banned in the ongoing trade war with the United States. That should be a concern for companies here. That may not be so much of a concern abroad.

We use the solution to secure the endpoint. Before the user connects to the network, it can be investigated whether to connect.

Cisco ISE has a powerful posturing tool with security requirements. This data can be integrated with the device identity and threat intelligence surface, enabling you to create granular policies based on a device's identity. Just like we made policies based on Samsung or Lenovo, you can now do the same based on its compliance posture.

You have to restart the system to change the DNS or NTP server.

I have been using Cisco ISE as a system integrator for three years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution’s scalability is good. We cater the solution to medium-sized businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup is easy. One engineer can deploy it in three hours.

The product has moderate pricing and comes with a subscription model.

We must check the compatibility with the other device before using Cisco ISE. Fortinet or Palo Alto provides integration to another device.

The solution has medium maintenance.

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

I'm an engineering student, studying smart information and communication technology.

The product has many useful features. It enhances compliance and security posture. It provides client provisions and profiling as well as guest access, features not available in other solutions. The product can be customized. 

Although the solution is easy to implement it's not so easy to understand. You need to be able to figure out the protocols, the nodes, and the personals of the nodes in order to implement correctly and make good use of it. Because it's a Cisco product, if you're not in a Cisco environment, it's difficult to integrate with anything else, so the big concern is its interoperability with other technologies and other vendors. 

I've been using this solution for two months. 

The solution is stable. 

ISE is extensible. It can be deployed for small and large organizations, and can even be distributed and centralized. 

We haven't used the customer support but if I do need some assistance my supervisor and the manager I'm working with can help. 

I've looked at other network access control solutions and ISE is among the leading technologies. I recommend it but suggest taking a close look at the technology before implementing it. Try to really understand it, because if you miss anything and don't configure correctly, it's going to be awful and you'll lose the benefits that the solution provides. Even if you only need one or two of the features that the solution provides, I would recommend using it. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution in our infrastructure.

I'm very satisfied with the product. It has been excellent so far. 

From the performance perspective, it is excellent. The outcome is as expected, giving control to the network. 

There is good integration with third-party systems like antivirus patch management, MDM.

They need to simplify the processes and management more, as well as the platform. Their user experience is a bit complicated, and it's not easy to manage. They need to do something to enhance the management console and make it more simple and easier to use.

I need to see stronger integration with Cisco SDN. Instead of treating it as a separate appliance, it should be a built-in feature in the SDN solution. This is one of the things that will reduce the complexity of Cisco's architecture. Instead of having multiple appliances, and getting lost in-between, and not knowing where is the problem is, everything can just be in one place. It will be better to move this feature or this technology as a built-in technology in the SDN solutions, similar to DNA and ACI.

The pricing and licensing structure are not ideal for customers.

I've used this solution for about five years, both in my previous company and my current company as well.

The solution provides excellent stability and reliability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We are a customer and an end-user.

Cisco, on the price, is not good now. This might entice customers or end-users to go for another cheaper solution where they can still find most of the features Cisco offers. 

They are now offering subscription licenses, and you have to pay thousands of dollars every year for maintenance and renewing support. Most users will not accept this new strategy of Cisco. It's not like HP or Dell, where, when you purchase the hardware and it's a lifetime license. It's a lifetime subscription. You don't need to renew the license every two years. Therefore, from a price perspective, no, Cisco's not good. Their strategy now seems to be pushing customers to go for other solutions.

The product is excellent and I would rate it at a nine out of ten.