Symantec Siteminder Reviews

The primary use case of this solution is a single sign-on to gain access to users and servers.

The security from the logistics team has required us to have a single sign-on solution. We implemented several single sign-on servers and we integrated them into one. The users would use it as a jump server. They would connect to it and from there, they would access the main server.

The most valuable feature is the integration with the Active Directory.

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.

I have been using this solution for two years. My experience with this solution is as an end-user.

The stability is fine, we have not had any issues.

This solution is scalable.

We have more than 100 users who are made up of engineers and administrators.

I have not been in touch with technical support.

Previously, I used Arcon as a bridge to build access management. Arcon is different from CA SSO single sign-on.

I changed jobs and in this new location, Arcon was deployed.

The initial setup was not a problem. I would rate the difficulty a seven out of ten.

We have a large network with several servers and it took more than six months for the initial implementation.

We had a team of three engineers to deploy this solution on-premises. They were responsible for the administration of the single sign-on.

We implemented this solution with the help of one of the partners.

My advice to anybody considering this solution is to always create their use cases so that they can do a complete and thorough POC before purchasing this solution.

Do not force the implementation of these types of solutions. It was forced by the management without proper planning. I have learned that proper planning works best for these types of solutions because you have to integrate with different components of the network, in order to be successful.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

What we're doing with Single Sign-On, we're providing security to different applications, like protecting the URLs. The other thing is, we're using SAML. With SAML we are connecting to the external vendor, external partner, and providing the customer a single sign-on to at the second domain.

It's more efficient. We're providing immense security to the applications, to Chase. We're securing 70 million customers in Chase.

I find that SAML is the best thing we're using right now because there is no need for creating the external account. If you take a partner like Disney World, if a Chase customer wants to log in to Disney World, then it is easy for them to log in with the same credentials, whatever we have at Chase. There is no need to make a new account or enter in the same data.

So, the Chase user, if he wants to purchase something on Disney World, tickets for example, he doesn't need to give his details to Disney World. He can use the information with the details, whatever we have, in the Chase DB. We're just, as part of the transaction, sending the details to Disney World and he completes the transaction with the details. So in that case, we're providing security to the user data.

We're working on a mobile API gateway. I am really interested to learn more about that.

It's stable, but we are finding some compatibility issues. We're still working with CA people. We're trying to improve the enhancements.

Scalability is good so far. It is user friendly, so we are not experiencing many complications when using this application.

Good support. We work with CA technicians frequently, engineers very frequently. They're very helpful.

Whenever we go to them with an issue, they'll first look at the existing DB. If the same kind of issue happened previously, they'll try to pull that information and provide us the feedback right away. If it is a new issue, they will really work hard to get the issue done, as soon as possible.

The most valuable feature for us is the configuration feature. It permits us to connect our company to the offices of our subsidiaries. So, when we buy a company we can connect their IT infrastructure to ours.

It connects us to our vendors, agencies, and our service providers that are within our group of subsidiaries. If we didn't use it or if we lost service for even two hours, we'd lose 20 million euros.

We'd like to see a new feature to support an openID connection portal. We'd also like for CA to be faster at shipping out new technical environments, such as OSs. They should do an operating system like RHEL, where Red Hat is on top the newest version of Linux. Today, they're slow to support new technology.

It's stable.

There have been no issues. The scale is very important for us because we are doing some new applications.

It's not user friendly, but it's very customizable. It's important to have customized developments integrated with CA SSO.

It's expensive. If you're small, it wouldn't be as good a fit, but if you are a big company, then it's a better choice.

Its flexibility and ease-of-use are the most valuable features.

The objects are tied together well in the administrator UI. It's flexible and easy to use, and the the policy store schema has been structured well.

It provides auditing and secure cookies, as well.

It provides security and protects end-applications. Auditing is good – it does a really good job of gathering all the transactional data. Anytime a user initiates a transaction, all of the information is captured.

It is very good. I have been working with the product for a very long time and have had no problems directly related to SiteMinder or its capabilities – only issues with our underlying infrastructure. There were a few things that CA has already addressed.

It scales very well. You can scale it horizontally or increase threads or socket configurations within the solutions.

They’re really good. Very knowledgeable. I had a policy store corruption – they were able to help me fairly quickly, in a reasonable time.

I’ve been doing it for a long time, I can say it's medium-level complexity. The policy store configuration, and tuning the policy store is a bit complex in ensuring it does not corrupt.

It is easy to implement, use, and scale. There is room for improvement as with any product. It’s solely based on what their requirements are, their user population, and their enterprise environment.

The client has a biometric identification module. We integrated that with the CA Single Sign On for new user registration, and it works perfectly fine for us.

It has considerably reduced the amount of time that new users would take to join into the organization. Previously, it was a lengthy, manual process because it's a very secure environment, where they need to verify the user before they can actually grant him a user-ID and password.

Integrating with the built-in custom application, and exposing CA Single Sign On to the internet, we were able to get the employees onboard. The time that we gained was: previously it would generally take from four to eight weeks for each employee, we brought it to one to two days.

The Federation part of Single Sign On, which is customizable and is easily integrated with any customer application or any third party application.

Maybe they could improve on the Federation part, and Federation with the apps. Not only for the websites, but with the apps also.

It's a very stable product.

Once we experienced a crash, the main policy engine of Single Sign On crashed, but CA gave us a fix for that.

Scalability-wise it's good. It's built into the product.

The support could improve in its response times, and in the understanding of the customers' problems.

It was complex. The Federation part of CA Single Sign On, it's a bit complex to implement because it involves the SSL certificates, exchange of certificates, and lot of technical details. The documentation misses some important parts of this, so that's the reason it took some time for us to go live.

When we're looking to select a vendor for a product, what's most important for a client like ours is the security; the product should be really secure. The next most important is the stability.

I rate it an eight out of 10 because, once we implemented it and the Federation part was working fine, we haven't faced any problems, except for that one instance where the policy was crashing.

I would definitely suggest going for CA Single Sign On.

It is reliable.

I do not think there is anything to improve. It is a pretty complete product.

We are using it as we have implemented it. I have not seen anything that is missing.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

The tech support has not been very good for us so we don't use them anymore. We have had some issues. Nobody is perfect.

It was a long time ago, but we stopped using them because of it. It was very long time ago. It might be better now, but it used to not be so good. Now, we solve problems in another way.

We started to use the product before it was CA. It used to be another company's product. CA bought the company a couple of years ago. I do not remember who it was actually.

It provides good security as a single sign-on tool and is easy to integrate with various applications. Also, the admin UI it provides is very user-friendly.

It provides end users with SSO to our applications – they log in once and they can access all of our applications. It’s simpler, more secure, and involves less time for the end users, giving them a better experience with us.

I'd like to see authentication using biometrics. This would be a nice addition.

Although the policy server has sometimes spontaneously restarted, it’s mostly good.

It’s scalable; you can add new servers and away you go. If we add more users or more load, it’s easy to scale up.

They are very helpful – always there when we need them. We had a problem with their impersonation solution with our application. It was not working with the existing version, so we called them and they determined the right solution was to downgrade.

We also have support tickets for other CA products and they are very responsive – on time and are helpful.

It was already in production when I joined the company.

It provides a good UI for us, and it provides a good solution for our needs. As a standalone product, it's good.

You should understand the user setup, requirements, how you want to service the users, and their infrastructure. Based on this information, you can find the right solution.

I really like the robust functionality that this solution offers, such as federation, OAuth, security, and multi-tenancy, just to name a few.

It really helps us and, importantly, it's very easy to use.

In regards to our organization, it provides a level of security that allows us to get on with our work.

The initial setup was kind of cumbersome as the instructions were not great. They should really improve this.

It has had its moments, but we deal with them and it seems to be getting better.

Definitely scalable, no problem here.

Mixed, as there are different levels of expertise and so the quality of support not consistent.

Others in my company had done the due diligence because once you’re married to the product you cannot change. But I don’t think CA SSO is the best out there right now.

It was complex and not at all straightforward. They really need to work on this.

Just do your research. This is very important.