If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
I would not recommend this solution. I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a six out of ten.
To avoid running into any complications when getting this solution up and running, you should get technically trained and comfortable with it before applying it. I would rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a seven out of ten.
The features are quite comprehensive, but it's okay. However, the pricing is on the higher side. Feature-wise, it is a nine out of ten. Overall, I would rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.
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.
I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a seven out of ten.
If you're planning on using this solution, my advice is to be sure you review the full feature set available and select what is important to your users. This way you'll be able to ensure that you'll have everything you want and need. Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would definitely give this solution a rating of nine.
I would advise others to make sure that you have the knowledge of this solution to get the full benefits of all the features, and you are able to use it on a daily basis. I would rate Cisco ISE a six out of ten. Its functionality is too wide for our company.
The main advice would be in terms of upfront design — this is where a lot of people get it very wrong. Depending on the platforms you choose, there are restrictions and limitations on how many users. We've got various nodes, so how many nodes you can implement, etc. Also, latency considerations must be taken into account; especially if you're deploying it across geographically dispersed regions. The main advice would be to get the design right. Because given that directly interferes with the network, if you don't get your design right it could be disruptive to the network. Once you've got the proper design in place and that translates into a bit of material, the implementation, you can always figure it out. Getting it right, upfront, is the most important thing. Overall, I would give ISE a rating of eight out of ten. I don't want to give it a 10 out of 10 because of all the design issues. There is definitely room for improvement, but overall out there in the market, I think it's one of the best products. It has a good ecosystem. It integrates well with Cisco devices, but it also integrates with third-party solutions if you have to do that. It's based on open standards, and we've seen the ecosystem grow over the years. So, they're doing a good job in terms of growing the ecosystem and making sure ISE can work with other products, but there's definitely room for improvement on the product design itself — on monitoring, on analytics.
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.
I advise new users to go through the admin guides for implementation and follow the script very carefully. On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco ISE an eight.
My advice to Cisco would be to simplify as much as possible so that a normal IT guy can understand the CCD and set it up. If they can simplify the manuals, navigation, and documentation, it would be nice. It will always be difficult for a beginner, however, to, rearrange or design the network. I would rate the solution five out of ten.
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
As of now, this product is working fine. I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.
Our clients and my company plan to continue the use of the solution in the future. I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a ten out of ten.
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.
I would rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.
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.
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.
The important thing is to have a good game plan going into it. Prep is key for everything going on with ISE. The more stuff you have prepped and the more understanding that you have upfront of how it goes through and how it behaves, the better off you are. I would rate this solution a nine out of 10.
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.
My advice for anybody who is considering Cisco ISE is to first run a proof of concept to see that all of the features work well. In my opinion, you have to see all of the features. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
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.
The deployment strategy was faster than the pilot. We had to see how it works and then we had to, in a transparent manner, see how it works. Deployment took about six months. But the rollout is on-going because we keep opening branches all the time, so we just keep adding them into the solution. For deployment, we used the front liner support but for documentation, we had professional staff. For deployment and maintenance, we have a small team of maybe about five to ten. I would give the solution 5.5 out of 10.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE an eight because the server is so complex. Cisco needs to re-program or re-issue it and release a new version with more adequate sizing for small businesses.
We plan to increase usage by around 20 to 30%. It gives people the peace of mind that they have the possibility to grant access to the people that visit their premises and ensures that they are working in a safe environment that is pure and clear when they use the posture services of the solution. I would rate it a nine out of ten.
It's a good product but it requires technical support and knowledge otherwise it will be difficult to manage and run it. It requires somebody to be configuring issues. You need protection as you advance in the usage but it's a good product. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. In order to make it a ten, it should be more user-friendly. You need somebody who is knowledgeable about it to use it. It's not easy to use. We have to rely heavily on technical support.
The advice that I would give someone considering this solution is to understand the licensing. From a design perspective, we refer to the ordering guide quite frequently. The most important thing is to have a technical planning session with the customer. A lot of the time the customer doesn't really know what they want and if you don't have that upfront planning and discussion with the customer, the deployment can take much longer. I would rate it a ten out of ten.
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.
I would rate this solution a 7.5 out of ten. To make it a ten they should have more people on tech support. They need to invest more in the product. It's a good product. They should just work on tech support. More support for the customer. It's not that easy to get somebody to understand this product. I have had some issues with tech before for the solution. One of them brought the solution down due to some of his activity. They need to hugely invest in their tech support.
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.
I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. I would advise someone considering this solution not to enable it with MAC. They are going to be in a very bad state after enabling this with MAC because if you do it is going to isolate so many devices which do not comply with the policy.
I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.
It's a great product but you should be careful to plan before deploying. Do thorough planning as not to do the same error that we did. We didn't do enough planning before deploying so it took us a long time to have a thorough plan. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
This solution can be used to protect one's application. The server has many features to secure and diagnose.
Which is better and why?
Let the community know what you think. Share your opinions now!