RSA Adaptive Authentication Review

Has Reduced False Positives In Fraud Detection Although Sometime Risk Scores Seem Erratic


What is most valuable?

Risk Engine’s risk score, eFN, GeoIP, and device binding all coming together in the Policy Rules to decide when to escalate to MFA.

How has it helped my organization?

It has reduced false positives greatly in our fraud detection ability.

What needs improvement?

RSA Adaptive Authentication lacks a mechanism to verify the identity of a new user in the Enrollment event workflow.

For how long have I used the solution?

Seven years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Sometime Risk Scores seem erratic. It might be due to some lack in client integration that we did with some of the consumer applications.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

No.

How is customer service and technical support?

Eight out of 10.

Which solutions did we use previously?

Before and in addition to RSA, we used RSA Authentication Manager SecureID Tokens for MFA in some apps.

How was the initial setup?

It lacked a risk analysis capability to help decide when not to step up.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Keep the proxy service layer on premises. That consumes SaaS security services on the back-end. Letting Cloud service providers use our on-premises directory, as users store, is a good compromise.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

Not sure. I haven’t been here that long.

What other advice do I have?

There are newer technologies and offerings from newer and smaller vendors. Look into the list of FinTech companies if you are constrained by budget.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Add a Comment
Guest
Sign Up with Email