Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

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 network device administration and for user access.

It has really helped us when it comes to security. It has eliminated trust from our network architecture because, with the solution in place, you tell us who you are and, based on who you are, we give you access. The solution provides us with a platform to define our policies. Users get into our system based on those policies. That eliminates threats. If you are not who you say you are, it will block you completely from our network.

It integrates with the rest of our platform, like our firewall, and helps us a lot. It also does a good job establishing trust for every access request.

With the recent release of the solution, we had a bunch of bugs and we had to delay our deployment. Other than that, the solution is good.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for 10 years.

Cisco ISE has come a long way when it comes to stability. It's getting better.

It's very scalable. We have it deployed in two data centers, and we're managing about 10,000 endpoints.

TAC is very responsive whenever we call them.

Positive

Currently we have two solutions that do the same kinds of things. For our wireless infrastructure, we use Aruba, but for our wired access, we use ISE.

The ROI we have seen is because Cisco gives us what they promised us. They deliver. Our requirements are being met and that results in getting value for what we pay.

Since we have a complete Cisco portfolio, including an Enterprise Agreement, it's not simple for me to compare what we're paying with the prices of other platforms.

We evaluated other companies and what they each do differently and looked at what was the better fit for our requirements.

Cisco TAC is really good. Whenever we have issues, we know they are there and that they will help us out with troubleshooting. The support of the other companies we looked at is not that great.

When I compare it with Aruba ClearPass and other solutions out there, I prefer Cisco. Cisco is number-one for user access, managing devices, and for network devices.

We don't leverage Cisco ISE for application access. We have another solution for that.

Get some hands-on familiarity with it first. Do a PoC and get people who really know the solution to help you out during phase one before you deploy it.

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.

Mainly the use case of the solution is for ensuring that the corporate staff gets access to their authorized systems. 

Another use case is for contractors to get access to the authorized systems. Those are the ones that hope to assist in the maintenance or for authorized admissions to the network.

We do also use it for remote access, for example, VPN's and also for wired and wireless access to the network.

The posturing is the solution's most important aspect. When a user connects his or her machine to the network, the first is for ISE to check whether that machine is authorized, check that that machine is compliant with respect to antiviruses, whether it complies with respect to Windows updates, et cetera. If not, a feature is on auto-remediation, so that the proper antivirus and Windows updates can be pushed to the machine.

At the moment, ISE seems to integrate very well with a number of other technologies. It integrates well with Microsoft and integrates well with other wireless systems.

In terms of the improvements I need, they've already, according to my research, done those improvements with their new versions. The features have already improved on their newer version, and that's why we need to update to that new version.

What is required is that Cisco needs to be doing health checks and following up with the customer to ensure that their Cisco partners have done the deployment right. That's something that has really helped us.

Whenever a partner comes and does any deployment, we would, later on, engage Cisco for a health check, so that Cisco could assist with their products. They would check whether it has been deployed following the best practices - or they would just alert us on which features that we have paid for and we are not taking advantage of that. 

Cisco needs to continue with that health check. That engagement with their customers to reconfirm everything is like a quality assurance that the Cisco partners have given the right stuff to their customers.

This product doesn't work in isolation. For example, when we talk of posturing the Microsoft updates, the system that does automatic updates for Microsoft needs to work in an ideal fashion. The antivirus needs to work. OF course, the antivirus is not Cisco. Those products need to work as they should so that integration of the ISE product will work as well. When all factors are held constant, Cisco works well. 

We have been using the solution for six years now.

We have been using it, especially during alternative working arrangements (due to the COVID-19). Using it, it's been stable. We have not had any issues. The only reason we are looking to upgrade is we didn't know the benefits that the newer version offered. When we checked with Cisco, they advised us that we were missing a few items that actually gaps caused by the partner's setup which we realized we missed during the health check.

We haven't had bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's good.

Everyone in our company is using Cisco. In terms of users, we have about 1,500, however, in terms of endpoints we have, that would be closer to about 3,000 to 4,000 endpoints, including wireless gadgets, switches, laptops, phones, and all that. We use it on a daily basis.

Scalability probably might be an issue. Before we bought ISE, we did sizing for each. We looked at the number of users in the organization, 1,500,  and then we used a factor to look at the uppermost band. We decided we would have to go for 4,000 licenses or 4,500 licenses. We multiplied by three. Based on that, we went for a certain hardware model.

This time, the hardware model we are going for supports up to or has the capability to support up to 10,000 users or endpoints. When we go for that, we will have used even less than 50% of what their hardware is capable of. Above 10,000, there's another hardware model that we're generally expected to go for. 

Basically, when you get the right model, when you do the right scaling, it will be very scalable. However, from the onset, you need to write hardware for USI.

The solution is more meant for enterprise-level organizations. It's not really for small companies, however, that has more to do with the pricing.

We're dealt with technical support in the past. Their support is excellent, except for Umbrella. There is a technology called Cisco Umbrella, and they're a bit slow, however, the technical support in general, depending on the severity of the issue, is very prompt. I would say we are quite satisfied with their level of service.

I've only ever used Cisco. I used to use NAC, however, they changed to ISE. I've never used any other product.

We had a partner set up the solution, and we're not sure if they set it up correctly. The partners come straight to us, and do the deployment. Cisco only is there to be the third eye to come and check that the deployment has been done okay.

You have to make sure that other items connected to ISE are correctly implemented and updated as well (such as the antivirus), otherwise, it won't work as you need it to. There's a lot of configuration that needs to be done at the outset.

I'm not sure how long the deployment takes, as I wasn't at the company when it was set up. However, it's my understanding that it shouldn't take too long so long as everything surrounding it is correctly aligned.

Any maintenance that needs to be done is handled by a third party. That includes patching, et cetera. We have an SLA with a Cisco recognized partner.

We worked with a partner that assisted with the setup.

Afterward, Cisco will also come in to do a "health check" to make sure the setup is correct and they can direct users to features they should use or are not using.

Cisco does not sell directly. They have authorized partners you need to buy through.

I don't deal directly with the licensing and therefore do not have any idea what the pricing of the product is. It's not part of my responsibilities.

It is my understanding, however, that it would be expensive for smaller organizations. Startups may not be able to afford these products.

We don't really worry about pricing, as cheap might be expensive in the long run if you don't get a product that is right for your organization, or is more likely to break down over time.

We are in the process of doing a refresh and I have compared other technologies to see how they stack up. I've looked at Fortinet, for example.

I wouldn't say we are switching from Cisco. What we are doing is we were exploring other technologies that offer similar functions. Sometimes it's good to look outside as you might think you have the best and yet you don't. We are just looking for other solutions to get to know what they offer. If we feel that there is something unique that is on offer somewhere else, then we would want to check that in Cisco and see, where is this offered in Cisco's product? 

We haven't concluded that we are switching. In any case, from what I have seen so far, it is likely we won't switch. 

We're just a customer. We buy their products for our security and our connectivity.

We're not using the latest version. We're actually using a few versions. We have ISE, which is version 2.3. We're supposed to up to version 2.7, and that requires a refresh of the hardware.

That's why we are saying, "Should we try to look for a different solution?" That's why I have been looking for comparisons. We haven't dedicated a lot of time to that yet. From my assessments so far, however, ISE still wins the show and it's likely that the partner that was doing the deployment originally on behalf of Cisco probably missed out on a number of things. It's really about the engineers who are doing the deployment. You need to make sure you have some good ones.

I would recommend this solution to others, especially mature organizations as the smaller organizations may not be able to afford this. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the product at an eight

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 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 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.

The ISE product is used to make sure that folks can get access to the application servers that they need to get access to, let's say for accounting and another group like sales and marketing, they would have no business accessing each other's servers, those apps. So you would set up a policy that allows accounting to do what they have to do whether they're remote or on campus and then the sales and marketing folks could never access that. They are totally blocked. It's a virtual firewall, basically.

The way the ISE works is you can get into defining. Let's say, in my case, I've got a Windows laptop and I've got an Apple product and those have unique identifiers, unique back addresses. It would say that this in my profile so I could get to those apps with either device, 24/seven. That's how granular the ISE or these NAC Solutions can get. That you have to have that same device.

They can get into the antivirus. They will check the antivirus to see if it's the most current version and if it's not, if that's your policy, it will let you go through and access the app if the antivirus has been updated. But if the policy was that it has to be the most current version, then it can block you until you upgrade the antivirus.

As far as what could be improved, to continually be thinking about ransomware, cyber attacks, and all those kinds of things. They always have to be innovating. Always have to be improving. I can't give you anything specific because these cyber guys are always coming up with new ways to get in. You just really have to be aware of what's going on.

In the next release, I would want to see this kind of solution in the cloud as opposed to on prem because when enhancements are made to the software, if it's in the cloud, it's overnight. I mean you're not going to have to respin the servers that the license sits on, it's all microservices kinds of things in the cloud. That would be my recommendation. If I'm a customer, that's what I'm looking at - for cloud based software subscriptions.

In terms of stability, they are rock solid. If you set the policy and you implement it, it's not going to break.

They scale. You just have to buy licenses. Whether you're talking about 5,000 users or more, it's just a licensing model.

What I saw most customers trying to do was to outsource it to the partner. A value added reseller would have to do that. They typically haven't been trained. They have to go to school, get certifications and that kind of stuff. That's always a requirement, but most people weren't going to tackle that themselves. They're going to farm it out to somebody who has done it before, who has the expertise to do it.

I do anticipate increased usage. Pick a vendor, like Cisco and Aruba, because for all the threats that are out there, they are always going to have some kind of a NAC strategy. You have to. You really have to. The days of the firewall or perimeter security are over. There are just too many possible ways people can come into your network - disgruntled employees, someone that got paid off, you never know. This is always going to be here.

They're very good. All of them are very good.

It has been pretty much Cisco from the beginning. With another VAR recently, we were pitching the Aruba ClearPass. And actually the ClearPass will run on top of a Cisco infrastructure, which is kind of cool. That's unique, but the ISE doesn't go that way. You won't run ISE on top of an Aruba infrastructure, but Aruba built that solution from day one to be compatible with Cisco switches and routers and wireless stuff. I thought that was pretty compelling.

Cisco has their ISE, their Identity Services Engine. The other one that I would tell a customer to look at would be the Aruba ClearPass. I don't know enough about the Juniper Solution to make any comment about that. But those are the two that I think about the most for identity solutions.

The first part is to figure out what you want, what the customer wants to protect, who needs to be protected, and to gather all the data you can on users, contact information, the devices they use, the Mac addresses of the devices, what time of day, what apps... I mean you really have to dig into all that. It's not easy. It's hard. The bigger the customer, the more complex it is going to be. But if you don't do that, the deployment is not going to go well. Really consulting on the front end has to occur.

On the consulting part, it depends on how big the customer is, how many you're talking about - 5,000 users or 50 users. That drives the answer. I would say if you don't take 30 days to scope it correctly and document, if you do something less than that, the execution deployment is going to go sideways and that can be months. Those things are months. Those could be six months or so. You've got to pick a pilot case. You build a template, you do a small group, and then you see how the reactions are, see if the users accept that policy, make sure it's right. I would do it group by group. Accounting first, or IT first. And then you do the sales and marketing and HR and all those kinds of things.

In terms of ROI, the only thing that comes to mind is if you look at whatever the current market data says for a breach cost if you have ransomware attack or something, if you choose to rebuild your network, as opposed to paying the ransom, what does that cost? Is that $100,000 a day? Is that a million dollars a day? So whatever that cost is, go look at the cost of the NAC licensing, ISE or ClearPass. And that answers the question for you. If you can block the threats on the front end, you can avoid the whole ransomware conversation.

I have not looked at the pricing in a while. I don't really know. These companies are putting together enterprise license agreements, like a site license, and they'll do multiyear and they'll make them pretty aggressive. If you are buying three security packages from them, for example, they'll give you a significant discount. If you're at two, when you look at the cost to go to a third one, they'll just do it because it discounts the whole package altogether.

As for extra fees and costs, it is just a subscription model, pretty predictable.

I can tell you, even as a Cisco person, ISE was considered very complex and difficult to deploy. That was coming from both the customers and the partners that had to deploy it. It can be very complex and you really have to know what you're doing. The thing that we always stress with customers is to go through and build a policy first. Decide what you want to block, and who is going to have access to what, and do some due diligence on the front end because once the policy is created, then you can deploy what we have all agreed to. As opposed to just trying to wing it and figure as you go - that is not a good play. That was always the comment from the Cisco customers.

My advice to prospective users it to find a consultant or a VAR that has done it before. I think that is key. And then talk to a customer that they did it for.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE a seven. That is because it is so complex. I mean, it's not a trivial task.