Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

We are using Cisco ISE for limiting port access in our organization's building for wired and wireless networks.

We were originally a Cisco shop and Cisco ISE integrated well with our other Cisco switches and networks.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for approximately three years.

The solution is stable and has good performance.

Cisco ISE  is scalable.

We have approximately 200 people using this solution in my organization.

When I have contacted the support for Cisco ISE I have always been satisfied.

The installation is not straightforward, it took us approximately one month.

They need to reduce the number of options for the installation or have a wizard that covers small, medium, and large enterprises.

We had an integrator help with the implementation. For the deployment, we had five engineers and for the maintenance and support, we use three engineers.

The price of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is expensive and we are thinking about changing to FortiGate.

I have evaluated Fortinet FortiGate solutions.

I would not recommend this solution.

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

My primary use case of this solution is to protect the website from web attacks. 

I use the F5 device on the DMZ zone of the firewall. A record will come to the virtual server on the F5. Then the F5 will upload the encrypted message to the server and decrypt this message. The firewall can see the traffic as unencrypted and we can mitigate the enemy and any attack from F5 and from the firewall.

The most valuable feature would be the protection. 

I would like for them to improve the reporting. 

This solution is stable.

It is scalable. 

I would rate their technical support as an eight. They provide a quick solution and I trust working with them. 

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The price is not very expensive. 

This solution can be used to protect one's application. The server has many features to secure and diagnose.

We mainly use it for authenticating devices on our network.

It's our way to track people who are authenticating onto our network, whenever they log on to our switches, et cetera. It's good for security purposes.

The interface is pretty easy to use.

Whenever we see the authentication logs, we can't see what device we're logging into. It shows us the main server, but we don't see details like, "It's in building 200," or that kind of thing. We can't see the IP address. We can see who logged in, but we can't see the IP address of the device.

I'm sure that's available. We just haven't figured out how to properly deploy it.

I've been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for about a year. I'm only using a small portion of it, so I don't know all the capabilities of the program.

The stability is good. I haven't had any issues with downtime or anything going out.

We use it enterprise-wide, around the world. That would indicate it's pretty scalable.

I haven't had to contact technical support.

It's a good product.

The solution is primarily used for authentification purposes. 

The solution is stable.

We have found the product to be scalable.

The device administration is great. 

It offers very good integrations and can easily be integrated with mobile devices.

The product works well with StealthWatch.

It's quite an innovative product.

Typically, the installation is pretty simple.

The solution isn't as dynamic as it could be. There are some limitations, specifically around switches. 

Deploying to a machine, as opposed to a dedicated appliance, can be a bit difficult. 

The network solutions need to be improved by Cisco.

I've been using the solution for three to four years. It's been a while at this point. 

The solution has been quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The scalability is good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have this solution deployed to 6,000 or more users. 

An installation is pretty simple if it is on a dedicated hardware appliance. However, if someone chooses to deploy to a machine, then you can face certain challenges during the installation. On a dedicated appliance, you can deploy in two to three hours.

You only really need one person to deploy the product. You don't need to have a big team.

We are integrators and can deploy the solution for clients.

We are a systems integration company.

I'm using different versions of the solution, and not necessarily the latest one.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's worked well for us so far. We find Cisco to be innovative and to offer good products. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

We use this solution to monitor and secure devices on our network.

Using this solution gives us the ability to allow proper access to the network.

The stability of this solution needs to be improved.

It should not be necessary to go to each individual set of alarms and acknowledge them in order for them to go away. There should be a single button that can be pressed to dismiss all of the alarms at once.

This solution has problems in terms of stability. I have had certain things that do not work, and I have called technical support for help. They have sent me a patch, and then it still doesn't work, so we end up living with the problem.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The feature that I most like is that it can notify me whenever someone plugs in their device, which is not allowed. I get notifications for new laptop devices.

I think the user interface looks good compared to previous versions. 

The software is a little bit complicated to understand in the beginning, meaning the implementation. It needs proper documentation so that we can understand the options more easily.

I have only very recently using Cisco ISE, since about one and a half months ago.

We have our own team for the maintenance of this solution.

I am still implementing it. So far it has been one and a half months.

Cisco ISE is a good product, but it requires some technical knowledge and knowledge about network security.

One a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE a six.

As I said, I have not implemented it 100%. Maybe once I implement it 100%, and I start using it in production, then I will rate it higher.

Our company doesn't use Cisco ISE internally. We act as the solution reseller. Our business model is set up to provide a network-based approach for adaptable, trusted access to our clients. We provide our clients with intelligent, integrated protection through intent-based policy and compliance solutions.

We found that the most valuable features associated with this tool are posture assessment, policy management, VLAN assignments, guest assignment, and BYOD services. In addition to these services, the Cisco IOS software switch configuration feature is another very valuable aspect of the policy and compliance solution.

There are issues with respect to the posture assessment function. It's been observed that customers are not receiving total access to the network because the assessment agent is glitchy and malfunctions from time-to-time. I would like to see refining of the compliance assessment and adding more detailed compliance of endpoints on the user end.

We have also had to deal with some cache update issues in conjunction with Cisco's tech support team. Unfortunately, they had trouble providing suitable solutions within specific and desirable time frames.

The next release should offer more inter-operability, increased cross-integration functionality. 

We are currently experiencing stability issues with this solution.

Technical support needs improvement. There were times when my engineers had to talk to a number of different Cisco tech engineers explaining things over and over again. If their tech support has to escalate an issue our support staff is required to mediate which of course disturbs workflows.

The setup requires proper planning. We approach every customer interaction strategically taking into account the complete project scope. It's our job to understand the customer's expectations and requirements for deployment.

Initially, the setup is a bit tough with respect to the graphic user interface (GUI) tool. Cisco ISE has proven to be a bit complex as well.

The solution is sufficient and seems to require little to no maintenance from the client side. Maintenance is always in proportion to the client's needs and product deployment. For instance when we are managing two Cisco ISE boxes with two onsite engineers. As capacity grows obviously we need more engineers; it's not a 1-to-1 relationship but we always take a minimum of two certified engineers qualified to manage Cisco ISE.

I would give this solution a rating of 7 out of 10.

My primary use case for this solution is as a server for my networking devices.

We have multiple metal devices from different places that use management, so we need to know who would be accessing all those devices and what changes are being done to those metal devices. With Cisco ISE we have visibility of all the changes happening on those devices.

The authorization feature is the most valuable feature. 

Support and integration for the active devices needs to be worked on. Their features mainly work well with Mac devices. If we use an HP the Mac functionalities may no longer be able to deliver.

It's not very stable. Product-wise, in terms of performance and in terms of stability, I don't experience any challenges.

It's highly scalable but it's challenging to scale-up non-Cisco products. We currently have around 50 users and 11 employees monitoring the device. We don't have any plans to increase usage. 

Their technical support is pretty good. They have a good database and knowledge space regarding this solution. You'll get the support that you need. 

We are also currently using ForeScout for another feature but we are facing multiple challenges with ForeScout implementation.

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment and negotiating time depends on your network infrastructure and what kind of environment you have.

You should have a fair understanding of the kubernetes that have been used in their infrastructure.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.