We use it for network access control.

It isolates the bring your own devices and the guests from the corporate network. It also segregates connections when a user comes in and connects. There is a certain profile review that goes on to confirm that the device is allowed to access resources on the network.

The policies allow us to enforce certain rules on the network to be able to screen our users more effectively. It allows us to have more visibility to what the users are trying to do on the network, which really helps us know how to control them.

There is value because it helps us secure the network and prevents certain things from happening which could cause financial loss. This demonstrates good value for money.

They should make their integrations with other manufacturers less restrictive. They should work on their integration with other vendors.

The integrations with the switches and the wireless controllers are not really straightforward. There is what they call the best practice for them, but it may not be what we have on-premise. We have to find a workaround with certain configurations to make them work.

We have been using the solution since 2021.

I am just working with the switches and Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE).

It works and does what it is supposed to do. It is stable.

It is pretty scalable.

We have used customer service.

Positive

I have not used any previous solutions and am not sure about others.

It is a bit complicated. The implementation took us about two months.

It is deployed on-premises.

I have not compared with other vendors, but the license is reasonably priced.

The cost is about 100 million Ugandan shillings, which converts to approximately $30,000 per year.

I have considered trying Juniper and D-Link switches.

I am only using the Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) and the switches. Higher licensing is required for additional features. I rate this solution 8 out of 10.

Positive

I use Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) for wireless authentication and device administration.

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is good with device administration.

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is very good at device administration. This is one of the best features. Other than that, for the wireless authentication and network access control (NAC) use cases, it is not a solid product because there are better products for NAC than Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE).

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) needs to improve the profiling preauthentication. They are very poor in asset classification and should focus on improving the preauthentication profiling, especially for NAC use cases. This will give them a roadmap for software-defined access (SDA) use cases and network segmentation. Threat detection capabilities are very weak. Additionally, the product is vulnerable and has many bugs.

I have been working with Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) for around four years or more.

The stability of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is poor for certain use cases, like authentication. Device administration runs smoothly. Authentication and NAC use cases do not. I would rate the stability as four out of ten.

Scalability is limited. Factors like architecture, business nature, and legal limitations such as GDPR affect it. I would rate it as four or five out of ten.

Technical support is poor. It heavily relies on a reactive approach, and resolving issues can take a long time. Simple issues can take 72 hours or more than six months for resolution. I rate the technical support as one out of ten.

Negative

We also use Forescout. We use both Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) and Forescout simultaneously.

The initial setup is challenging. For enterprises, it can take months due to VM setup requirements, poor tech support, and Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) having many bugs. Small setups might take a day, but larger enterprise setups are much longer.

Cisco tech support and professional services are poor, lacking clear requirements and solutions.

The return on investment for Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is difficult to gauge due to complexities. For enterprise customers, it comes at a lower cost and is comparatively cost-effective. Direct comparisons with Forescout reveal up to 30% to 40% difference in cost savings.

Setup costs vary. Cloud solutions are expensive, while on-prem setups with shared environments are cheaper but not effective. Dedicated resources are needed due to the demanding nature of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE), making large organizational costs significant. 

For small organizations, it's effective - not for larger ones.

We have evaluated and used Forescout alongside Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE).

For small setups and if the backend infrastructure is Cisco-based, Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is suitable. However, for large organizations with mixed infrastructure, other solutions should be considered. I would rate it four out of ten based on my experience from the last year.

The primary use case of Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is to serve as a security solution that can specify the endpoints in an organization for segmentation. This involves defining the reachability domain for each endpoint in an organization. 

It automates pushing access lists or authorizations and offers profiling to define and manage endpoints. It provides profiling to help organizations define the type and points of the endpoints, building security rules, and providing health checks to ensure endpoints comply with rules.

The solution offers automation and real-time visibility, which aids in monitoring and troubleshooting issues with endpoints. 

The product provides feedback about the network based on endpoint behavior, assisting in understanding the network's current state.

The solution is integrated with other Cisco devices and can offer automation for an organization, making deployments more dynamic and providing real-time visibility. It gives feedback on what is happening within the network and assists mostly with troubleshooting. 

Additionally, it's considered highly reliable and scalable.

The licensing scheme is complex and could use enhancement to provide more options. Pricing can be more expensive compared to other vendors, and there is a significant price gap observed, which doesn't seem justified by some specific features. The complex licensing schema and the need for improvement in pricing are primary areas for improvement.

The Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) has been deployed for a long time in various environments.

Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) is considered very reliable and stable. Although it is not one hundred percent reliable theoretically, in practice, it offers great reliability.

The solution is described as very scalable, and there are minimal issues with scalability.

Sometimes it's challenging to identify which support team is responsible for certain issues, which is a significant concern.

Positive

Setup is not about deploying ISE itself, but rather about managing the number of switches and endpoints in the organization. After initial deployment, routine upgrades and backups are part of the normal process.

A specific implementation team is not mentioned, but deployment complexity varies depending on the organization size and manpower available.

Cisco ISE is more expensive but covers a lot of features. The pricing scheme could be improved. Compared to other solutions like HPE ClearPass, Cisco is more costly, and the conversation suggests a possible forty percent price gap compared to competitors.

Detailed mentions of other solutions include HPE ClearPass and Fortinet. However, these are mentioned for comparison purposes rather than as alternatives considered before using Cisco ISE.

It is suggested to keep the review anonymous and refrain from making personal information public.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We used it mainly for network access control and full stream for devices.

The product is expensive. It would also be a good add-on to have some machine learning.

I have been using Cisco Secure Firewall for one year.

The product is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It's also recommended for clients during deployment. You're making everything very efficiently managed within the policies. The deployment is also very smooth, allowing you to configure your rooms easily. Once the initial setup is done, it becomes straightforward to understand, especially regarding Windows maintenance.

It was deployed to protect the network from unauthorized users but does not contribute directly to operational efficiency.

Cisco ISE doesn't come cheap but it's still valid working.

We recommend it to our customers.

Cisco ISE provides authentication for various applications. It can integrate with other applications to manage access, including Privileged Access Management for those applications. For a comprehensive environment, Cisco ISE should be able to integrate and provide asset management for an IT organization or any organization.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for network access control.

Cisco ISE is a comprehensive solution that allows you to control access to network resources granularly based on policies.

Cisco ISE is very complex and not very easy to deploy. There are a lot of prerequisites for the tool.

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

We did not face any issues with the solution’s stability.

Cisco ISE is a very scalable solution.

We are working with a partner for support and are very happy with them.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is bad and ten is good, I rate their support a seven or eight out of ten.

Compared to Cisco ISE, Fortinet NAC is more consumer-friendly.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a four out of ten.

The project lasted a few months, but the planning took several months. Cisco ISE itself means nothing. It has to have the network set up to ensure the network penetration is in place, and we're still working on that.

Security is about risk control and exposure avoidance. You can only calculate its return on investment based on how you avoid penalty fees. Cisco ISE improves our security stats.

If you consider money only, Cisco ISE is not a cheap solution. Functionality-wise, however, it offers a very good price for the value you receive.

The solution's compliance and policy enforcement capability has benefited our organization by simplifying work.

The solution operates in the background, and users generally don't interact with it. Cisco ISE is the security framework layer between network resources and end users using them. Users do not go into Cisco ISE to do anything.

It's like Active Directory for Identity. If you're an end user, you don't work in Active Directory, but you authenticate Active Directory to use resources on the network. The same applies to Cisco ISE, and users don't interact with it directly. They are affected by it to the extent to which they are accessing network resources.

Cisco ISE has a very comprehensive integration suite and we did not face a lot of challenges in integrating this solution with other security tools. If they know how to use it, I would recommend the solution to other organizations with similar security needs.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We are using it in-house for phone profiling and for users' computer authentication needs.

The policy and segmentation that we use are currently based on the users and their domains. Let's say different domains, such as HR or finance and procurement. We have policies where users are assigned VLANs or specific requirements and are directed to corresponding policies where services are activated. They have access to specific services based on their domain or vertical.

Many Cisco ISE features are good. It offers automatic profiling of phones and computers, enabling administrators to identify and categorize devices seamlessly. Additionally, Cisco ISE can block anonymous devices attempting to connect to the network. This includes unauthorized attempts from non-domain computers or users trying to obscure their identity to gain network access. Cisco ISE ensures such attempts are thwarted by enforcing full identification authentication.

I struggled with spoofing, specifically the max spoofing feature, which I believe has started working after version 3. Before that, it was not that effective. They could incorporate some AI features.

I have been using Cisco ISE for over three years.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a out of ten.

Scalability is also good. I haven't seen any problem because I currently have a new deployment for the ISE and other branches. Getting an integrated access setup is easy, and scalability is also fine. Initially, the scale upon the licensing part and that sizing is low. ISE's existing policies pretty much work very well. There are no significant changes you have to make.

We have more than a thousand users using this solution.

ISE support is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. They are very easy to manage and not complicated at all.

We have received all our files from the client and deployed them. Currently, we are using single active nodes. We have one Primary Admin Node, which is active, and one Policy Service Node. We don't have a secondary admin node for administrative purposes. We have an active operational node. The deployment is pretty simple. You download the file from Cisco, import it into your Cisco ISE, and follow the prompts to set it up based on your requirements, including IPs, basic security needs, DNS servers, etc. Once the initial setup is complete, you can begin creating policies.

Cisco ISE protects your environment from potential physical attacks. This ensures that your environment and users are fully safe, thus enhancing your overall security posture as a first line of defense.

We don't have the full license. An enterprise license includes Apex and device management. We secured it for one of our new branches where the deployment will start. We have a full enterprise license, including Apex and device management, to cut costs.

The problem is we have a team of five. I look into the security and infrastructure part.

Integrating Cisco ISE depends on the specific products you're working with. Each integration may present unique challenges that require individualized solutions. There isn't a one-size-fits-all checklist for potential issues.

They were looking to protect their assets, such as devices, from somebody. If they have an environment exposed to users who frequently come to their office, and it's not a very closed environment, then Cisco ISE is very much required. It's the first place where the attack starts. From a risk and compliance perspective, ISE is essential.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is being used for authentication purposes and for sharing assessments. 

Cisco ISE has helped improve our security. 

It helps ensure that you are working in accordance with the organizational policy before you join the network. Also, the solution is very reliable. 

I would like to see better management. Integration with other platforms can also be improved. 

Cisco ISE does not recognize devices and that is an issue we faced during its integration with our existing devices.

I have been working with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for ten years. 

The stability of the solution is average. I would rate the stability of the solution a seven out of ten. 

The solution's scalability is average. I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. 

The initial setup of Cisco ISE is complex. For the deployment, the solution needs to be installed and then it needs to be integrated with the network and certificates to get to the endpoints. 

I would like to advice that Cisco ISE is a reliable and stable solution although it is not very easy to use. They should work on integrating the solution with other platforms.

Overall, I will rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I do the designing and implementation and hand it over to the customer. Sometimes, I provide support to the customer. The solution is used for network access control. I have implemented almost all the features of the product.

TACACS is valuable. The product is useful for device administration.

We face many bugs. The vendor is trying to improve it by releasing new patches and hotfixes.

I have been using the solution for almost five years.

I rate the tool’s stability a six out of ten. It breaks down a lot.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. To scale the solution, we must decide which persona should be added. There are different personas for management, monitoring, and policy enforcement. It needs some calculations. I have a lot of clients. One of my clients has 20,000 to 50,000 users.

The initial setup is not easy. It should be designed properly. The solution has almost two or three personas. The design must be reviewed correctly. The implementation is not easy. It is a little bit complex compared to other NAC solutions. The time taken for deployment depends on the size of the implementation. It can take from one week to one year.

The solution is not that cheap.

We are partners. A lot of customers are using Cisco’s infrastructure. The product can be integrated easily. We have faced a lot of issues while integrating other tools. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use it to secure our networks. We can secure our switches and wireless networks, basically everything.

We use it primarily for wireless security, but it can be used for many other things as well, like LAN and WAN security.

There is room for improvement in CLI. Most things are done through the GUI, and there aren't many commands or troubleshooting options available compared to other Cisco products like switches and routers. We have more visibility on the CLI for those devices, but the GUI seems limited. Moreover, sometimes, GUI seems very pathetic. 

I have experience working with this solution. I have been using it for four to five years. We still use the old version, but we plan to migrate to the new version soon because they recently changed their licensing model.

The product is stable. We don't face many challenges. It's stable, so  I would rate it around a nine out of ten.

The product is scalable. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have medium-sized businesses as our clients. 

There was some delay.

Positive

Setup wasn't difficult because we already had a solution in place. It was very easy to install.

The deployment definitely took weeks.

I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten, one being cheap and ten being expensive.

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