Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) vs. Tufin Orchestration Suite

Cisco ISE integrates will with a Cisco solution such as firewalls, network switches and routers. It does an incredible job of granting access based on the role that an individual or groups have, and the ability to remove access to that individual or group is also east. In our environment ISE is used to authenticate external users that have access by vpn, and also to manage access to the large network infrastructure

Incentivized

Well suited scenarios - 1) Firewall Policy / Ruleset management 2) Where all the products are from Tufin like TOS ST, SC, SecureApp etc 3) Where customer focuses on ruleset compliance - USP violations, and other features Less suited - 1) Agnostic/distributed environment - Tough with integrate with 3rd party like CyberArk 2) FW recertification processes / exception process when complex process is included

Incentivized

• The most beneficial thing that I love about it, there are tons of things that I love about ISE and that it does well, but the most fascinating that I feel about is its integration with DNA center or Catalyst Center using PX Grid as the protocol wherein ISE acts as a policy server for the entire campus hand in hand with Catalyst Center to make sure that the policy policy follows the user and also in the background hand in hand with DNA Center or Catalyst Center makes sure microsegmentation is implemented so that east west traffic is blocked and takes care of the campus.

Incentivized

• Firewall management
• Compliance reports
• Unused rules and optimization
• Policy Automation

Incentivized

• Trustsec needs more documentation and configuration best practice examples
• The licensing model can be difficult to explain and understand for customers
• Difficult to get an accurate benchmark to know exactly how many Cisco Identity Services Engine nodes and the size of the deployment should be

Incentivized

• Palo Alto Networks Integration
• Better/more user friendly api for integration with ticketing systems
• Web UI structure is not user-friendly

Incentivized

We are so very reliant on Cisco Identity Services Engine at this point that finding another solution would be a big hassle for us.

Incentivized

For us the solution is very easily useable on its own. Perhaps that has to do because we started using ISE in the 1.2 days and have seen it grow during the years. Policy creation, etc. is all very visible and thus easy to use. Deployment of multiple nodes is also incredibly easy and flexible. You can easily add or remove nodes as you wish.

Incentivized

We do have to occasionally reboot the servers when they get low on memory, but we're also a few versions behind. Availability has generally been pretty good though with no major outages in the time that we've had it implemented.

Incentivized

yes it does. depending on where you coming from. Logs are pretty busy same as report. it also depending on devices count and design.

Incentivized

Cisco support is second to none, both in terms of how you access support but also the knowledge of the individual support teams. If you focus on one technology and provide "manufacturer support" then you can rest assured that you are accessing Cisco's top individuals. I feel like this is a USP for Cisco support.

Incentivized

Training can only cover certain areas, there are a lot of areas training just can't cover. You have to learn by doing it.

Incentivized

I did participate in the implementation of Cisco ISE and while there were times when it was confusing and we had a lot of trial and error, overall the experience was fine.

Incentivized

I think all give some visibility of device monitoring and management, but Cisco Identity Services Engine gives a good way to manage more details about the device in a centralized way that gives a wider range of monitoring and control than the other softwares individually. I don't think Cisco Identity Services Engine eliminates the need for these other software as of now, but there is potential for Cisco Identity Services Engine to be able to take over more of these roles.

Incentivized

1) Fairly okay overall but definitely needs improvement overall Vs the other products available in the market like Palo Alto XSOAR 2) Cost wise okay at the beginning but when client demands add-ons/ more features/customization tailored to their needs, Tufin Orchestration Suite recommends RFE / custom costs/development costs 3) USP feature is cool to use overall Vs FireMon 4) Tufin ProServ needs to buckle-up/Support compared to other competitors in the market

Incentivized

Cisco ISE was competitively priced and Cisco was able to leverage some of our existing contracts to help ease the purchase.

Incentivized

It's fully customised and comprehensive. only thing is you need to know what you want. Proper research and planning would save lots of time and effort .

Incentivized

• I don't know about negatives because we haven't seen it right now, but positive impact is one is the roadmap we have. And now since we are going ahead with doing the deployment of Cisco ISE, we see that we are getting closure to, so at the end of the day, we have to make sure that operationally we stay excellent. So that's where operational excellence comes in. Cisco ISE is basically addressing that for us. Right now we are in a situation if there is a WIFI issue or if there is an authentication issue, it gets really difficult to isolate the problem. But with Cisco ISE , this functionality is going to come in. So we believe that it would be a good ROI.

Incentivized

• I think if you correctly configure your SIEM, you don't need Tufin. You can correlate a lot of things for firewalls.

Incentivized