I would rate it as nine out of 10.

In terms of eliminating trust from network architecture, ISE can do so when it's implemented correctly. There are still certain functions of ISE where you have to be diligent in making sure that if a user is plugging into a network port, that that port is set up to use ISE for authentication. It's kind of a two-way street. It's a great tool, but you have to set it up correctly. You have to make sure that it's doing what you've intended it to do. When you do that, it's great for that. We don't have any issues with that and it's definitely an integral part of our network.

The advice I would give people is to decide what you are looking for in terms of your AAA. Are you looking for a secure way to authenticate VPN users, users logging in for WiFi, for wired access? Something I don't use at my organization is the Guest Portal, but I know ISE has a pretty considerable catalog for deploying guest portals, for device onboarding, and posture assessment. If those are all the things you're looking for, the features, I would definitely recommend ISE.

There are various dimensions to cybersecurity. The first thing is how you enter a network and what you do with particular use cases. My recommendation would be to focus on north-south traffic. That is what is coming from outside to inside through a normal network plane. You should also be vigilant about what your internal users bring in from the outside. My advice would be that you have to be vigilant not only from the outside traffic, but you have to be wary about the traffic that internal users bring in. 

When it comes to zero trust architecture, specifically for network authentication, this is one of the tools to go for. I would rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten because of the ease of deployment and the support. 

A lot of the apects that needs to be improved in the product has already been done in the 3.0 version, including HTML5 and integrations with other cloud products like Azure and Intune. I just haven't upgraded yet. They are doing a good job of keeping up with new technologies. I have a small team, and it's hard to keep up with products.

With our dot1x, we've seen situations where people have inadvertently plugged their own PC into the port, and the port shuts down. We instantly know that the port got shut down. It's been great. I haven't found another product that can do it as well and as easy to set up as the implementation of dot1x.

The solution has freed up the IT staff’s time a little bit, but it also created more work in a good way. It has created more work in Cisco because now we're doing segmentation. We're taking dot1x to the next level and closer to moving towards a zero-trust network. The Cisco team gets access to the servers after authentication.

We've done a lot of research on zero-trust networks. I work for a research company, and we've been looking at ways to do it. Historically, we have done segmentation by identifying groups of servers and locking them down. This process is challenging to manage. While setting up micro VLANs, we can provide role-based access instead of just putting applications on server pools and wondering who gets what access. If user A needs to be able to update their personal information because they got a new phone number, they need access to the HR system to do that. The HR people need to be able to see all their review records. However, user C doesn't need to see anything that user A is doing. That is what we are looking for. We want zero trust so that an individual has access to what that individual needs to be able to do and nothing more and nothing less.

We had been running two other RADIUS servers just because they worked better with the product that we brought in. Cisco Identity Services Engine is more configurable, especially on ports. So, we were able to get rid of the other two RADIUS servers. We don’t have to pay service contracts for them, and there are no more upgrades. Now, we have one suite that we focus on.

The mean time for issue resolution has drastically reduced. Everybody's looking at the same pane, the network team and InfoSec. As soon as they see something blocked, if we're not already investigating it, they're investigating it. We get to share the responsibility with multiple groups with the same end goal. It has tied the team together and made things a lot easier.

I have a small team. I have seven sites and seven people. And if I applied one person to each one, we could watch it. Our InfoSec group, who's watching all their logs from the external firewalls, would watch that. With Cisco Identity Services Engine, we must have saved 100s of hours over the year. If something comes up, two groups almost instantaneously open a chat and start working on it. We know that our escalations are blocked on time. The amount of cleanup that we've had to do from malicious devices is down to almost nil.

The solution has helped our organization to improve its cybersecurity resilience. We see malicious or unknown devices and react to them. We see known devices come in with outdated software. Everything gets addressed as soon as the user connects. It all comes together.

Spend some money on classes and not on just who you think is going to lead your project. Get your whole team involved. If you are from the networking side, ensure your InfoSec team is included, and vice versa. The tool has so many capabilities that you will feel overwhelmed, but it becomes easier once the pieces start coming together.

We had two other RADIUS servers. When we moved to Cisco Identity Services Engine, we were on Cisco ACS. Not many people offer the granularity that Cisco does because it's the main protocol for authenticating on devices.

Cisco SD-WAN’s support still needs more learning. Cisco ThousandEyes started the same way. They have improved in the last two years. They're up to an eight out of ten now. Before, I didn't even want to talk to them. We love the product.

We're expanding our cloud and looking at deploying the product on a hybrid cloud. However, we've got to get done with SD-WAN first.

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

I would definitely rate it as a nine out of ten. The only major problem for me is the GUI  but I can't really complain that much because it does have all the functions that we need and even more. 

It would be fantastic if it was more user-friendly and there was more explanation.

I give Cisco ISE a nine out of ten.

Cisco is continuously improving its products. There are so many features that we're not even using in Cisco ISE. So we use what is relevant for our own use case.

I recommend that individuals conducting research on the solution take a thorough look at 802.1X and gain a comprehensive understanding of how it can offer the desired level of security.

We utilize Cisco throughout our environment and chose ISE due to our familiarity with all of Cisco's products.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

It has a lot of rich data in it, however, it's hard to get stuff out of it. You really have to know the product very well and live there to know where to go and find what you are looking for. There's a lot of telemetry in there, however, it's very difficult to actually see how to leverage it.

I've even been telling my security team, "Guys, there's a component in Cisco ISE that you need to work on, and you need to log in more often." Then two years later, they'll ask, "Why don't you guys use it?" The security networking team will say, "Well, we gave them access." My security team will say, "It's too complex. We have no time to go in there. We don't know where to find anything." That's the only problem that they need to fix. They need to make it easier to navigate, it's too deep.

Cisco ISE is a good product. It tightly integrates with all of the networking components, but you can leverage it and get a lot of return and investment out of it. However, you need to make sure that when you're rolling it out and when you're initially putting the platform in, you will need to get your help desk team and security team involved.

Of course, the networking team is the one that's probably going to own it, however, there are so many components in there that can help. The help desk can troubleshoot issues and can provide visibility from the security standpoint, and the networking team owns it anyway. If you get them more involved, they'll be more in tune with using it more often.

There are a lot of help desk and security capabilities in there. Still, just the networking team rolled it out, nobody wants to look at it, as it's a networking piece of the platform, yet really it's not. You can get a lot from this platform. That's probably what I would tell people, just get everyone involved from the get-go, so that they can get more value from it in the long run. 

Go for it. It's a great solution. It's very configurable and you can tie your environment together from a wireless or from a wired side. I love the solution.

I rate Cisco ISE a nine out of ten.

From a user's perspective, Cisco ISE is seamless. It is extremely helpful as it reduces the amount of work required to access and control device permissions.

Our organization is a major Cisco partner, and it is logical for us to increasingly integrate Cisco products into our environment.

It's hard to dig into at first, so seek help and education.

I'd give Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) an eight on a scale from one to ten because it's Cisco, it's reliable. It has a lot of development and other vendors around it because it is Cisco. It works and is pretty stable.

The product provides an email notification if anything is detected. We set up ACL policies based on which the product would alert us through emails if anything major happens.

The solution helped me give access to many people who use Cisco products, either router switches or UCS, from other teams. Instead of creating every ACL on the tool, I only need to set up AD group permission and add their username for them to access the same policy.

I do not use the cybersecurity features of the tool much. We only use the solution for AAA authentication. I need to explore the other features we seldom use. We are upgrading to version 3.1. We recently signed a contract with Cisco Advanced Services. They might provide us with more information to use the tool in my company.

Since I joined my current organization, we have used Cisco for everything. We have deployed the tool primarily in one location, and the secondary one is 5000 miles away in another location. One tool is in California, and the other is in New York.

I implemented version 3.1 just two months ago. I need to learn more about it and enable more features on my network. I need to improve myself to learn more because version 3.1 has a lot of new features.

Overall, I rate the product a nine 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 rate Cisco Identity Services Engine a ten, on a scale of one to ten. It's a necessary solution to deploy in order to achieve many of the business outcomes such as some of the smart business architectures, certainly anything within the automated campus designs that are out there with DNA Center. It's just an incredibly powerful tool to manage both identity and endpoints within the infrastructure, and it really does become the hub of a hub and spoke comprehensive security architecture.

When Identity Services Engine became the de facto migration path from ACS Access Control Server, we were very early adopting and getting that product into our labs and in the hands of our customers for proofs of concept, proofs of value, and enterprise pilots.

I'd give it a nine out of ten. There are some hurdles with upgrading and licensing in particular, which is why I wouldn't give it a ten.

In terms of ISE for end-to-end security, it's our primary tool right now for that. It's hard to compare with other applications or hardware. Sometimes there are limitations, for example, we use it for wireless only. We don't do anything with ISE or 802.1X on the wire, which is something we'd like to do, but we're hesitant based on our experiences with the wireless side in terms of the slowness.

On a scale from one to ten, I give Cisco ISE an eight. Primarily because it seems like it's doing a pretty decent job managing our wireless connections. And there are enough tools in the GUI interface that give us feedback on performance. It's been a pretty decent install for us.

People groan when they realize that they're going to have to do troubleshooting on Cisco ISE; even the nerdiest of nerds. But any product in this space would engender the same reaction. Trying to figure out how I prove that you're allowed to be on my network is not everybody's happy place. We all just want to set it and forget it.

The usability and the upgradability over time, for a product that is in such a critical spot, should be better. I'd love to give it a ten because it was the easiest thing in the world to upgrade. It's just not there yet.

Cisco ISE, on a scale of one to ten, I'll say it's about a six. I'm giving it that score because, first of all, the ease of deployment is one of the biggest things for us. Also, the ease of use. The reason why I'm not really giving it a ten is when it comes to the licensing model and all the subscription fees – that's the big issue for me with Cisco licenses. Additionally, when it breaks, it could potentially break big as well.

I'm a network analyst for one of the largest healthcare entities in Canada, and we have over twenty thousand employees.

Overall, I'd rate Cisco ISE a seven out of ten.

I've worked with customers who have used Purple Portal, for example, for their guest wireless access. In comparison to using Cisco ISE, Purple Portal adds an extra layer of complexity on all their guest networks running through a third party. This means that the customer will not have as much visibility into their guest users or control over what their guests see when they join the Wi-Fi network.

With Cisco ISE and the way the policies are built, it gives you a lot of freedom. It covers a wide range of potential solutions. Because each bit can be built together modularly, you can build anything with it. Therefore, Cisco ISE applies to so many different applications.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE at eight because it is a complex product and requires more technical ability to deploy it, though it fits many more solution requirements.

Cisco is the main player in networking and security. Having that backing behind our company gives us credence. We're proud to sell the products and to recommend them. Cisco's portfolio is what I would sell by choice. It just makes my job a lot easier.

I would rate Cisco ISE a nine out of ten. Despite the fact that the solution offers numerous features, it is challenging to use.

We do not rely solely on Cisco ISE to secure our infrastructure from end to end. Instead, we utilize various tools such as McAfee, DLP, and Endpoint Security. Additionally, we have the Domain client to check for any breaches. On our Internet edges, we perform SSL offload to enhance the performance of security projects like WAF and IPS, as well as conduct full packet scans. Furthermore, we have NGFW and NG Networks in place.

Cisco ISE is an important component in protecting our environment because it enforces security against the main point of vulnerability, which is accessing workstations. Ransomware infiltrates a network through workstations. The policies implemented are based on the posture model, ensuring that we use the necessary products on our network to mitigate such risks.

I was not involved in the initial setup, but testing the implementation of a new feature is always challenging. We need to allocate time to test it with the security team and the network team. Additionally, we need to create a separate environment to gain a better understanding of how we can improve the performance of the solution within our network. 

For organizations that do not have the funds to purchase Cisco ISE, there are good open-source solutions available. These include TACACS servers, OpenLDAP, and FreeRADIUS. However, Cisco ISE is an excellent tool for enhancing all the existing tools within an organization.

Regarding how the solution helps me secure my infrastructure from end to end, I would say that it is a good solution for us. We are also using all the features Cisco ISE has.

I don't believe it does save my IT staff any time because we need to build the policies and follow the configuration, then follow the user access.

After getting rid of other products, my company was able to save some money.

Regarding the solution's ability to consolidate tools and add to my security infrastructure, I would say that because Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) was able to get rid of those other products, it did help secure my infrastructure.

It did improve my company's cybersecurity resilience because we have deployed the solution as a high-availability solution. So if we lose one of the boxes, the other one, we all remain to stay in the job.

I would absolutely recommend the solution since it helped us a lot to improve our security and put some tools together in a single pane of glass to support and troubleshoot it. So it's easier to do that.

Regarding if the solution was able to integrate well with other solutions, I do not think we have any integrations at this moment, but I know that Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) has a lot of integrations.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

It hasn't helped to free up our IT staff. Our IT staff is already very limited anyway. We've always worked smart and don't work where we don't have to work. For example, in 2019, we were more than 60. There are 14 of us now, and we still do the same amount of work. Cisco ISE hasn't contributed to less workload. We do it with automation. We have a lot of Linux, so we do automation on all of our stuff. 

Overall, I'd rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.

In terms of advice for anybody who is looking into Cisco ISE, I wouldn't suggest just jumping in and buying ISE. I'm not trying to talk badly about anything, but I would say, do your due diligence and understand your network and what's going to work for you.

Definitely understand that you're getting into a lot with ISE. There's a lot of capability, but I don't feel like just one person working on a hundred networks should be taking that on and trying to manage it themselves.

Overall, this is a good product but there's definitely room for improvement. Also, we're not using everything we could within the product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. 

I give it an eight out of 10 mostly because when you get in to start configuring the details, it's hard to find some stuff. Otherwise, it's a great platform.

Organizational leaders should do constant analysis of their security posture, in order to be improving every day.

I would rate them as eight out of 10 because of the remediation feature.

When it comes to securing our infrastructure from end to end so that we can detect intermediate threats, a lot of it has to do with integrating Cisco ISE with other products. For example, Cisco ISE primarily deals with either the access layer or remote connections. However, when you start integrating it with other things like titration or secure network analytics, you can get a bigger grasp of the overall picture. When you bring other security teams into it, they can start creating their policies, alerts, etc. They can start automating some of the incident mitigations and stuff like that.

My use case is a little bit different in that there's no end to our work. There are a lot of other business groups within my organization that aren't complying with what the network security policy should be. So I have to reach out to them and get them to use a dot1x protocol or ensure that their stuff is in our CMDB database.

We're in a big migration and shift in our overall security policy. So there's a lot of moving aspects going on right now. However, as we start getting things moved into an MDM, as we start getting things moved into using a dot1x protocol, we can get an active identity of an endpoint.

Cisco helps reduce the amount of staff we have to chase down and figure out what kind of policies should be implemented. We can then incorporate our onboarding process into that, preventing unauthorized devices from connecting in or at least be reassured that if anything that we haven't had any chance to look at connects in, we can deny it with confidence. Down the road, it'll alleviate a lot of the time and planning we're doing right now.

My organization is a bit different. I've tried to get them onto the posture feature of Cisco ISE, but they're pursuing other vendors for that. We've decided to incorporate through a pxGrid integration with other applications such as Tanium, Forescout, or whatever application my security organization uses. They can pull contacts from the Cisco ISE endpoint and then be able to issue a quarantine action to Cisco ISE on that particular endpoint.

Overall, I rate Cisco ISE ten out of ten.

I give Cisco ISE an eight out of ten. Without knowledge of how the other implementations or competing offerings function, I believe Cisco ISE performs admirably in its intended role. Moreover, I am aware that without it, we would encounter significantly greater challenges. Therefore, I consider it to be great.

Our organization utilizes Cisco products extensively, which, in my opinion, is the reason behind the organization's decision to choose Cisco ISE.

I believe we would have a much more open network if it weren't for Cisco ISE. We would be restricted to only using PSKs, and we wouldn't have a true understanding of what our residents are connecting to the network. I think that's likely the most significant aspect of the implementation.

Use ISE if you want to build more resilience within your organization.

I would rate the solution as eight or nine out of 10.

It's a very strong platform, especially now that we're on version 3.1. It's definitely my go-to. I would recommend it over any other NAC platform.

It requires a lot of technical knowledge to actually get it off the ground and running. It's not quite as intuitive as it could be, but it's still a solid platform.

I work with various versions of the solution. 

We're resellers.

Others should know it's a very good solution, very stable. There are a lot of features, and it is a secure solution. It's the first solution that we indicate to our customers and most of the time, the decision of the customer is to deploy a Cisco product. 

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

Do a deep dive. If you're a Cisco shop you really don't have a choice. It's the direction they're moving in. Cut your teeth with it and don't rely on outside sources to implement it. Implement it yourself so you know how to troubleshoot it and move forward. If you use outside sources, as soon as they leave, you're left holding the bucket and you don't understand what's going on.

I see the theory behind ISE and if we can get it to gel in our environment, it will be a beautiful thing.

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.

Whether in terms of user experience, user interface, ease of use, and things like that, if I was to speak about something specific that I really value about the solution, I would say that upgrade processes are not simple. It's easier to just restore the state by going through the steps for the upgrade. We also use VMs and a couple of hardware appliances since sometimes we run into certain issues that nobody knows about. We've had a couple of incidents that were challenging. Cisco blamed it on VM infrastructure, while our VM team blamed Cisco. We were stuck in the middle. We had to re-provision a couple of things. All this was because sometimes it is buggy.

It hasn't really helped free up my IT staff for other projects. 

It helped my organization improve its cybersecurity resilience by making sure that untrusted devices are not connected to the network and only trusted devices get connected.

To those planning to use the product, I would say that it's a good product. You must plan ahead, test thoroughly, and do it step by step. Don't try to migrate everything at once. It is an overall good product.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

Sometimes, the Cisco guys disagree about it, but other than that, the Cisco guidelines are clear and concise enough.

Cisco ISE helps to secure our infrastructure from end to end so we can detect and remediate threats. The solution does what it's supposed to do.

Cisco ISE has saved a little time for our organization.

Since Cisco ISE is a more robust solution, it has helped our organization improve its cybersecurity resilience.

Before implementing Cisco ISE, you should look into it in-depth on how it can be used, how it can be integrated with existing tools, and how your staff can be trained to troubleshoot it. The solution has its pitfalls, and when it breaks, it can break heavily. So be aware before you deploy it.

Overall, I rate Cisco ISE a seven out of ten.

I give Cisco ISE a ten out of ten.

Cisco ISE is a great tool. It integrates well with Active Directory and numerous other components. The solution has become a fundamental part of our network and I recommend Cisco ISE to others who are looking to improve their cybersecurity.

Resilience is super important. The solution needs to be able to hold up and promise what it [intends] to deliver. In cyber security, that's super important because if you have any slight exploit, you're going to have malware attacks, ransomware attacks. That's [a] big [issue] in our company as, more and more, you hear about legacy systems being affected. These legacy systems sometimes don't go away. Sometimes you need them. You have to do your best to either patch them up or protect them either through a firewall or an access control system. 

[It's about] protecting the network infrastructure from exploits and really allowing us to segment IoT devices and the corporate network. And because [on] the corporate network, once you get into it, there really isn't anything protecting against accessing critical storage systems, accessing mission-critical servers, [or] our sales numbers, it's super important that we have the ISE so that we're only allowing the things that we want into the network that we trust.

[What I would tell leaders who want to build more resilience within their organization would be] evaluate solutions, prioritize it, get manpower behind it. Also, too often they put cyber security on the back burner. They're trying to maintain operations and sometimes cyber security can get in the way of operations. But trust that system, once you build it up, will protect you and that it's worth the investment in terms of money, labor, and time.

Be patient with the implementation. It can be very difficult for the clients, the people using it, because it requires a change of mindset.

I rate Cisco ISE eight out of 10. It works fine in our experience. 

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.

The tool secures our infrastructure to a certain point. However, we're not using it in terms of detection. My team is only four people, and we take all the tasks together.

The solution did not help us consolidate tools. However, it does help us with TACACS. TACACS was a big thing that we needed. We are trying to get rid of NPS and RADIUS, and we will probably use the product in the future for Certificate Authority. It could probably consolidate tools, but it's not doing it now. However, it will in the future.

The product has absolutely improved our cybersecurity resilience. With all the posturing we're doing and the Zero Trust policy we are bringing, it prevents other users from insider threats. It helps big time with insider threats. It's a big thing for us in our specific programs.

Give it a shot because we did give it a shot. People at first said it was very pricey, but it wasn't really as pricey as people say it is. It's worth trying it. Zero Trust will be mandated later, especially if you're in the government. The product will play a big role in it.

One of our team members was pursuing a certification in CCMP security. He was specifically on the Cisco Identity Services Engine track. We got that for him to demo and test it out. Eventually, it became part of our product. TACACS, Posturing, and Certificate Authority could be the reason why we chose the solution. We are using it now for 802.1X. All port security is not a thing anymore for us.

Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I give Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.

Cisco ISE is equipped with numerous features. We are a small company and only utilize the ones we require. However, as our requirements change or grow, we may consider adopting more of the features that Cisco ISE offers.

The administration can be time-consuming due to all the updates and patches, but overall, I recommend Cisco ISE.

Our organization was familiar with Cisco, and we used wireless LAN products. That is why we chose Cisco ISE, as it integrates well with our infrastructure.

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

It's a great product. I'd rate Cisco ISE a nine out of ten.

In terms of detection and remediation of threats, it wouldn't detect anything. If we integrated it with other products, it could cut certain clients off from the network, but we haven't gotten that far yet.

It hasn't helped to free up our IT staff. It has probably consumed more time.

I don't have a lot of familiarity with other products, so I'd rate it a six out of ten.

To someone researching this solution who wants to improve cybersecurity in their organization, I'd say that make sure you know what you're getting into. Understand and have a good plan going into it and have operational support for not just networking, but also help desk and other IT teams before deploying this solution.

I don't know if Cisco ISE has saved us any time because it's an enhancement to our security that we didn't have before. It probably takes a little more time than not having it. Having no security is super easy because you don't have to worry about anything, but if you have any security product, you have to do work to support that.

Overall, I'd rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.

Design it well in the first place. If you design it well, you can scale it. Always read, line-by-line, the Cisco guide because that's where you'll find all the information about the design and the scalability. If you design it correctly in the first place, you will have a smooth ride.

We want to use it in a hybrid cloud deployment, but we currently use it 100 percent on-premises. As we move more into the cloud, we're trying to integrate that with Cisco ISE to make it our authentication and authorization source. We're not really into the cloud yet. We're just doing some dev. We're building a whole cloud strategy.

We have a lot of things we use for detecting threats. We use the product more for authentication issues and stuff like that. We don't use it to identify threats per se. We have other tools.

The solution helps free up our IT staff. There are only a couple of us who are Cisco Identity Services Engine administrators. In that way, other people can do other things. Once we set up the solution, there's really not a whole lot of maintenance to it. I don't know how many hours it saves. It just works, and we don't have to touch it most of the time. It does its job.

We were using Cisco ACS before using the product. We changed tools and upgraded. The tool helps us improve cybersecurity resilience. We use it for RADIUS and to validate users. There are a lot of tools that we use. Cisco Identity Services Engine is a good tool. It does 802.1X and RADIUS very well. Cisco shop is the way to go.

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

[When it comes to eliminating trust from our organization's network architecture] I'd say, no, ISE hasn't done that. It's been a challenge to implement this. We're trying to bridge the gap between the security guys and network guys. They're not the same teams. Sometimes the security guys also do networking, but it can be hard to cooperate on projects like this. This is a big project. ISE is a pretty big solution and security guys are sometimes lost in what's going on in the network, like equipment where you have to configure things.

It's pretty much the most resilient solution as of now.

I like this solution a lot. I would say it's a nine out of 10.

Make sure you understand where you want to deploy nodes and how far away they are from other locations since there is some latency involved.

We don't do any sort of application-based stuff right now. It is just purely assigning devices to what VLAN they are supposed to go to.

We are looking to upgrade to a newer version. Hopefully, by seeing some of the stuff at Cisco's event, I can find some more features that we could use.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

Overall, I'd rate Cisco ISE a nine out of ten.

I would rate Cisco ISE with a nine out of ten based on its overall benefits. However, since I am unable to utilize all the features due to the need for coordination from numerous other teams, I would personally assign it a benefit score of only five out of ten.

We attempted role-based access with the Cisco ISE integration, but it didn't work out effectively because it is more of an upper-level issue regarding organization and role level. Multiple teams had to collaborate, and there was a need to configure the Active Directory and Organizational Unit groups. This also involved restructuring and similar tasks. As individuals moved between OU groups, someone had to consistently update the OU groups to ensure the success of the process.

We have made a significant investment in Cisco infrastructure; therefore, we have chosen Cisco ISE as a logical option for our authentication mechanism.

Cisco ISE has not directly assisted our organization in enhancing its cybersecurity resilience.

Our customers are using Cisco ISE, but we're helping to integrate it into their solutions.

The end-to-end infrastructure security from Cisco AnyConnect host points is very good.

Cisco ISE has helped free up our customer's IT staff to concentrate on other projects. In the UK, where I predominantly work, a lot of the NHS staff have a lot of access switches located throughout multiple buildings. Cisco ISE probably frees up at least twenty percent of their time.

Our customers can use Cisco ISE for device administration for TACACS, RADIUS devices, and individual host appliances.

The migration from ACS to Cisco ISE has helped. Some of our customers were looking at various MAP implementations using different vendors, but we've now got I 2.1 X and MAM all built-in together.

Cisco ISE's ability to consolidate tools or applications has centralized everything and made things a lot easier and smoother for our customers to carry out their day-to-day tasks.

Cisco ISE has helped improve the cybersecurity resilience of our customers' organizations. We've always been able to integrate Cisco ISE into other products. So they're getting more security alerts, making them a lot more secure and happy with their environment.

Overall, I rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.

My main focus is on the .1X access. We have another security team whose focus is on VPN access. I use Cisco ISE for TechX authentication and .1X authentication.

Cisco ISE saves us time. If you deploy any security features using Cisco ISE, you don't have other options not to automate it. Part of our Cisco ISE is integrated with the Cisco DNS center. The Cisco DNS center saves time in terms of configuration, integration, upgrading, and adding other switches to the fabric. You can deploy the features in Cisco ISE using manual techniques.

Cisco ISE was already deployed in my organization when I joined. However, I know that Cisco ISE replaced ACS.

I work in the banking industry. Our main concern is securing our network from either remote or on-site access. When you get physical access to the site and connect your device, you might risk the security of the network on purpose or unknowingly. Deploying Cisco ISE has helped improve the security of our organization.

Overall, I rate Cisco ISE a nine out of ten because I have a very good experience with the solution and hear the same from other vendors.

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 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. 

I recommend this solution to all. Overall, I rate it a perfect 10.

To someone researching this solution who wants to improve the cybersecurity in their organization, I would tell them to first think about what they are trying to achieve and then think about Cisco ISE as a tool. It isn't a turnkey solution.

It hasn't saved our IT staff's time. It was something that wasn't present before. It's an evolution that is necessary, but I wouldn't say it saves time.

It did help us consolidate any tools or applications. It was either a replacement of some legacy products or it was an improvement where it introduced new features that were not present before, but it didn't help get rid of some of the other products. It was a new thing to place into the network.

Overall, I'd rate Cisco ISE a six out of ten.

If you are a leader who wants to build more resilience within your organization, I would advise you to follow what they're doing at ISE.

If you're evaluating Cisco ISE, do an apples-to-apples comparison. There are a lot of features, and ISE is a monster. If you use it the right way, I think that no other product will compare to it.

Learn about the solution, then evaluate what devices it would be implemented with. I would amalgamate the devices and their versions with a systems integrator or partner who already has experience and will try only to replicate it, not to reinvent the wheel.

Part of our journey is getting everybody connected to the infrastructure and trying to avoid any breaches. We don't want to be vulnerable.

I would rate the solution as 10 out of 10.

I would recommend ISE to colleagues. We are happy with it and we want to use it in the cloud, next. Our on-prem devices go end-of-support in 2023 and we will try to use it on the cloud.

If you are on the fence about it, and you don't have someone on your team who has worked with the product before, definitely reach out to a company or a certified Cisco entity to help with the rollout. It's pretty painful if you don't know what you're doing.

Resilience is never a bad idea and it's never too late to start working towards it or to begin the journey to Zero Trust. It's very important in this day and age. 

I'm the only cyber security administrator that we have currently, so if we hadn't gotten this solution in place, I highly doubt that I would have been able to make it here to Cisco Live 2021, so it's excellent.

From 2015, when I first started using it, until now, there's not really a lot that I would ask be changed. They've been hard at it ever since I first started using it.

It's been incredible ever since we got it in place.

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.

To leaders who want to build more resilience within their organization, I would say that it's definitely worth moving toward a zero-trust environment. It's really a rebranding of an old concept of least privileged access, but the tools we have to implement it, such as Cisco ISE and firewalls, at the core and the ability to broker it out to the cloud as well, give us a lot more visibility and a lot more control over the traffic and our data, which is our biggest asset.

If you're evaluating the solution, pick two to three use cases, stick with those, and familiarize yourself with the solution. Try not to get overwhelmed with the interface, and don't try to see everything it can do and let it spin out of control; it's easy to do that. Just start with something you really need to implement and then worry about adding more features later on.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE at nine.

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.

While we have focused on the access control aspects of the solution, the documentation demonstrates that it has many more features, so I would like to explore it further. 

We are customers of Cisco. 

At the moment, we have around 250 users making use of the solution. 

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) as a five out of ten. This is because I wish to explore further any additional features that can add value to our organization, especially on the IT security side. 

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a seven out of ten.

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. 

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

It's one of the more difficult products to deploy.

You can learn a lot about ISE from their training videos. I would suggest watching the videos before deploying the solution. They have created good videos for ISE, from version 1.3.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Before deploying, it's a good idea to read up on the product first and then get some training so that when deployed, someone in the organization understands the solution. I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

When deciding to implement this solution it is a good idea to assess and define the requirements to determine whether there is a need for this solution. It is important to know what you can use from it. You can have a WiFi environment without the need for a Cisco ISE. This solution has advanced security that might not be needed for your use case. Be sure about your needs.

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a seven out of ten.

My advice would be to do an evaluation of the product and purchase it.

I'd rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.

An idea we are looking into is associating it with the MAC address table, so that approved devices can log in to the more restricted network.

My advice is to attend training before going for it. Otherwise, it will not be easy to understand. Each product, from ACS to ISE, does similar things, but they do them in different ways.

I rate Cisco ISE a nine out of 10. If it could become a little bit easier to understand that would help.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

I would recommend this solution.

If someone is looking for a concrete solution to control the access, then ISE is a better solution.

Talk to someone outside of Cisco too, if you're thinking about ISE. That way, you can get all the information.

We wanted to outsource some of our work because I only have two years of admin experience and another of our network engineers has about a year. This way, if the system goes down, we have a quick way to get it back up.

I would tell leaders who want to add cyber security resiliency to make sure they include team members who are involved and not just make decisions on their own.

I rate Cisco ISE nine out of 10.

It's done the job that we put it in place to do.

In terms of establishing trust for every access request, trust is only as good as the rules and definitions you build. Without that, you need not only to trust the device, you need the trust of the customer too. That's important.

Trust is only eliminated when a customer wants the rules loosened. When the customer says, "This is too difficult, you're making it too hard," that is when exposure happens, things start collapsing, and there are breaches. You can't give the customer everything they want, because they don't know the consequences. You have to educate them. They need to know that the inconvenience of hitting "enter" to log in, and having it take three seconds or five seconds is because you'd rather have the machine and the network think before they let you on the network. A lot of times a customer will say, "If I'm hitting enter and it's not bringing me to where I need to be, then this is not a good solution." You have to educate them.

The solution is like an iPad that someone set up for you. If they didn't do a good job setting it up, you're going to rate the tool as bad. A lot of times, I come in and it's already done and I have to fix the problems. There are times that I do create it from scratch and it works really well. 

It is worth checking out the integration that it provides. It is a strong platform.

Cybersecurity resilience has not been that important for our organization.

I would rate ISE as eight out of 10. It does exactly what it is supposed to do without much issue.

Other than the slow admin interface, it's an excellent product.

This is a good solution for security teams. If you do not have a security team, I would not recommend this product. 

Overall, I would rate Cisco a seven 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.

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.

Regardless of your industry, I would recommend Cisco ISE if you want good identity management. I would rate this solution seven 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. 

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.

We must check the compatibility with the other device before using Cisco ISE. Fortinet or Palo Alto provides integration to another device.

The solution has medium maintenance.

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

I've looked at other network access control solutions and ISE is among the leading technologies. I recommend it but suggest taking a close look at the technology before implementing it. Try to really understand it, because if you miss anything and don't configure correctly, it's going to be awful and you'll lose the benefits that the solution provides. Even if you only need one or two of the features that the solution provides, I would recommend using it. 

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

I would tell potential users that this is a good solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give  Cisco ISE a ten.

The product is excellent and I would rate it at a nine out of ten.

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) an eight out of ten.

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 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. 

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) an eight 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.

I'm a technical person, and I've worked for a company that does system integrations, including network pre-sales. My company sells Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) and Fortinet products in Turkey. I can also sell these products. My company is a gold partner of Cisco.

I've sold the on-premises version of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine).

Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is the best solution for Cisco network customers. It is the best solution for Cisco network devices. As for network products from other vendors, we can use, or we could offer other network access control (NAC) solutions, e.g. Fortinet NAC, or Aruba Secure NAC, etc.

I'm part of the pre-sales team at our company. There are other people who are responsible for installing Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) post-sales, e.g. they install the solution for the customers. For this reason, I am unable to give information on how long it takes to install the solution.

We currently have over 30 users of Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine).

I can recommend Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) to other users.

My rating for Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is eight out of ten.

We are a system integrator.

The version of ISE we are using depends on the customer. 

We primarily have the solution set up on premise. 

In terms of advice, from a security standpoint, it is paramount for any organisation, to be secure, no matter its size (large or small). Having secure network access control will always make it safer & help organisation in attaining a zero trust environment 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

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 a ten out of ten. 

The main advice is to seek for an accredited ATC system integrator with a large ISE portfolio.

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. 

When someone is implementing this solution the difficulty depends on where they started. We started with zero and there was a very large learning curve. However, once they understand how it works, it's straightforward. There is a sharp learning curve to start working with it.

I rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.

I would suggest having an experienced engineer implement the product. If there is an error when implementing, you will experience many issues, especially lagging.

If it was well implemented I would rate it a nine out of ten, because it's good.

Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is used in large enterprise companies. In our company and with our implementation, I would rate  Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a four out of ten.

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.

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. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco ISE a seven.

I would recommend this solution as it is very easy to set up and has a very easy user interface. I would rate this solution as 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.

We have deployed this solution and we keep on exploring more and more. It can do wonders for authentication and limiting access with the network.

After the deployment, I would recommend completing a proof of concept.

I would rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a nine out often.

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. 

Not all features are available with base license, plus license allows for profiling and provisioning

I would rate Cisco ISE an eight out of ten.

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. 

I would not recommend this solution.

I rate Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) a six out of ten.

This solution can be used to protect one's application. The server has many features to secure and diagnose.

It's a good product.

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 would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

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.

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. 

As of now, this product is working fine.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.