Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Fortinet FortiAuthenticator.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
I would like to see integration and customization capabilities with the end-user portal to solve authentication issues with diverse implementation scenarios. Specifically, with web applications, enterprise networks, and VPN.
I'd say that the integration with some other enterprise applications could be improved. For instance, ADFS. FortiAuthenticator does not work natively with ADFS and the company is not looking in that direction. It's one of our in-house applications and it was a challenge integrating with FortiAuthenticator. We had to write a separate, customized adapter for ADFS before we could make it work. We tried to get Fortinet to work on it but I don't think their development team is interested. It's not in their plan. The other challenge was when I integrated with I think VMware - there was an issue between the radio adapter and FortiAuthenticator. Both parties were not ready to work together and the implementation was buggy. I believe this solution can be adapted to so many things, depending on the technical side and the implementation engineers. I'd like to see some additional use cases that can be infused into the solution, such as ADFS.
So far there hasn't been any major feature that we wished for and didn't find, but I would say in regards to bugs, sometimes we face unexpected issues that delay the implementation a little. However, I believe Fortinet will sort this out soon. Hopefully the solution will be more stable overall. In terms of what additional features we would like to see in the next release, we would to see support for more of the common operating systems. They already support Windows OS, with the use of an agent installed on the windows machine. However, we would like to see support for Linux-based operating systems for example. This is a shortcoming that I have faced a few times already. Also a nice addition would be agents for End-user Machines especially Windows OS & MAC OS.
Although two-factor authentication has come a long way, there are a lot of companies that are going further. The reason for this is because people are finding ways to compromise traditional, web-based solutions. I would like to see more ways to authenticate, such as adding facial recognition to the two-factor, where you log into your phone or another device. That would be great.
For us, the solution works quite well. I can't think of an area where improvements are needed. I haven't worked with it too extensively yet, so it's hard to gauge what's lacking. The solution could be more automated. It should be able to let me automate a lot of things so that what normally is done as a matter of manual processes can be handled quicker. Slow integrations can be taken up/out if there was more automation.
There is nothing that really stands out as something that needs desperately to be added or improved. We are using Fortinet all the time, we know their GUIs, so we can manage well with FortiAuthenticator also. The main problem now is not exactly with the product itself. We are using FortiAnalyzers. But when we use that product with FortiAuthenicators, we can not use SQL language to access data from the FortiAnalyzers database. When we use it with FortiGate, we can query the FortiAnalyzers database, but it is not possible to do it directly with the FortiAuthenicators. This integration should be better.
It does the job I paid for, but the graphical interface could be improved. If we take FortiGate or Fortinet, the graphical user interface is better designed. I think they can work on this. It would be good to remove the FortiAuthenticator or to combine FortiAuthenticator and Fortinet. That would provide a single platform that can manage network access and user management. It doesn't make sense for me to sell FortiAuthenticator to a customer and then sell them Fortinet as well. I think they should just combine them into one solution.
There aren't any major features that I think should be improved. I like this product. As a multifactor authentication, we have the SAML function. If you compare it with RSA or Gemalto, it does a good job. I'm able to perform multifactor authentication in different ways via emails, SMS, it's a great product. For someone concerned with multifactor authentication, I'm satisfied with the product. There aren't any major additional features they could include in the next release but the one thing they used to include was the SMS gateway from the ISP. Fortinet used to sell that but they don't anymore and I think it would be helpful for end-users if they brought it back. I would recommend that. People are asking for it because they don't like having to rent it from their mobile provider.
We have issues with HA (high availability). These should be addressed in future releases.
I've only been using the solution for one month, so I haven't come across any glaring issues so far. The hardware aspect of the solution could be improved. We are not really able to understand the hardware capabilities of the device.
I don't have any issues with this solution, but it may need a better, more user-friendly interface or better design of the platform.
If you want some other FortiAuthenticator from one site to another site, you should have requirements, but really if you have authentication and directory or another solution, you should change the password of the authenticator between the solution and the directory and other things. So the transfer of data and other information should be simpler. In the future, I think h02.exe is very important to authenticate users internally. To economically move the person from vnom to vnom. Also, the ESO to ensure the authentication of users should be a bit more automated.
They need to have some kind of write-up and solution document that people can access very easily. All of the Cisco documentation is available on their website and in other places. They should make it available to the public. The more people know about this product, the better. That will make it easier for them to position FortiAuthenticator to their customers or use the product in production. Other features that would improve the product are a single sign-on where people can use their Gmail ID to log-in, etc. This feature we wanted and now they are rethinking it. At this stage, I can't give any other suggestions for improvement other than this. A single sign-on is used to create a user ID and password for the user to get onto the network. You can ask them to use their LinkedIn credentials or maybe Gmail, some of the social networking credentials to gain access. This is useful when you are onboarding any guest users for internet access. This is something that is a very good feature which they could have integrated already.
How do FortiAuthentucator and FortiNAC differ? I am also comparing it with ClearPass.