Cisco ISE vs Aruba ClearPass

1. TACACS+ for Network EquipmentTACACS+ (Terminal Access Controller Access-Control System Plus) is used for centralized authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) for network device management.

• Cisco ISE:
  • Strengths:
    • Deep Cisco Integration: ISE integrates seamlessly with Cisco routers, switches, wireless controllers, and VPNs, leveraging proprietary features like TrustSec and pxGrid for advanced security policy enforcement and context sharing.
    • Granular Device Administration: Offers robust TACACS+ capabilities for device administration, allowing fine-grained control over user access to network devices based on roles, locations, or other attributes.
    • Scalability: Supports large-scale deployments with millions of endpoints and thousands of network devices (e.g., 30k sites, 60k devices, 1M endpoints in a single deployment).
    • Advanced Profiling: Uses AI-driven endpoint analytics to identify and classify devices, enhancing TACACS+ policies by incorporating device behavior and context.
  • Weaknesses:
    • Complexity: Configuration can be complex, especially for non-Cisco environments, and the GUI is often criticized for being slow and less intuitive.
    • Proprietary Features: Some TACACS+ features, like TrustSec, are Cisco-specific and may not work well with non-Cisco devices.
    • Cost: ISE tends to be more expensive, with licensing based on endpoints and features, which can add up for large or mixed-vendor environments.
• Aruba ClearPass:
  • Strengths:
    • Multi-Vendor Support: Built on open standards (e.g., FreeRADIUS), ClearPass supports TACACS+ across a wide range of vendors (Cisco, Arista, Juniper, etc.), making it ideal for heterogeneous environments.
    • Ease of Use: The user interface is more intuitive and easier to configure for TACACS+ policies compared to ISE, reducing setup time.
    • Flexibility: Offers customizable TACACS+ policies and supports advanced features like dynamic VLAN assignment and role-based access, which work well across Cisco and non-Cisco devices.
    • Documentation: Aruba provides extensive documentation and video tutorials, simplifying TACACS+ setup and troubleshooting.
  • Weaknesses:
    • Aruba Ecosystem Bias: While excellent for multi-vendor support, ClearPass has tighter integration with Aruba’s wireless and switching infrastructure (e.g., downloadable user roles for Aruba APs), which may not fully leverage Cisco-specific features like TrustSec.
    • Scalability: Highly scalable for medium to large enterprises but may not match ISE’s capacity for extremely large, geographically distributed networks.
    • Cluster Issues: Some users report database synchronization issues in clustered deployments, requiring careful planning during upgrades.

2. Access Switchport Security ControlAccess switchport security control, typically achieved through 802.1X authentication, MAC Authentication Bypass (MAB), or other mechanisms, ensures only authorized devices connect to switch ports.

• Cisco ISE:
  • Strengths:
    • 802.1X Leadership: ISE excels at 802.1X authentication, using it to secure switchports against unauthorized access. It supports granular policies based on user roles, device types, and locations.
    • AI Endpoint Analytics: Identifies and classifies devices (e.g., cameras, badge readers) that may not support 802.1X, though non-802.1X devices require workarounds like MAB.
    • Policy Enforcement: The Policy Enforcement Engine enables dynamic VLAN assignments, ACLs, and TrustSec Security Group Tags (SGTs) for precise access control.
    • Integration with Cisco Switches: Embedded device profiling in Cisco switches and wireless controllers enhances switchport security without additional sensors.
  • Weaknesses:
    • Non-802.1X Limitations: Devices that don’t support 802.1X (e.g., IoT devices) can’t be secured directly via ISE’s 802.1X, requiring MAB or other methods, which are less secure.
    • Complexity: Configuring switchport security policies can be cumbersome, and older Cisco switch firmware may require upgrades for full compatibility.
    • UI Challenges: The GUI’s complexity can slow down policy creation for switchport security.
• Aruba ClearPass:
  • Strengths:
    • Flexible Authentication: Supports 802.1X, MAB, and hybrid modes, making it versatile for securing switchports across Cisco, Aruba, and other vendors’ switches.
    • OnGuard Posture Assessment: ClearPass’s OnGuard feature checks device health (e.g., antivirus status, OS patches) before granting switchport access, enhancing security for BYOD and IoT devices.
    • User-Friendly Policies: Simplifies policy creation for VLAN assignments, ACLs, and role-based access, with a more intuitive interface than ISE.
    • Multi-Vendor Compatibility: Works seamlessly with Cisco switches for 802.1X and MAB, and its profiling engine categorizes devices by vendor, OS, or type for precise control.
  • Weaknesses:
    • Cisco-Specific Features: Lacks support for Cisco’s proprietary TrustSec SGTs, which may limit advanced switchport security in Cisco-heavy environments.
    • Profiling Complexity: Profiling for MAB can be less straightforward than ISE’s, requiring manual attribute assignments in some cases.
    • Licensing Costs: While generally more cost-effective than ISE, licensing for advanced features like OnGuard can increase costs.

3. Other Considerations

• Integration with Existing Infrastructure:
  • ISE: Best for Cisco-centric environments due to tight integration with Cisco switches, routers, and security products (e.g., SecureX, Stealthwatch). It supports third-party systems but requires more configuration.
  • ClearPass: Excels in mixed-vendor environments, with open architecture and standards-based protocols (RADIUS, TACACS+). It integrates well with Aruba wireless and third-party systems like firewalls and EMM.
• Ease of Deployment:
  • ISE: Deployment can be complex, especially for large-scale or multi-vendor setups, and requires skilled administrators.
  • ClearPass: Generally easier to deploy, with straightforward setup processes and better documentation.
• Cost:
  • ISE: Higher施加链接 Higher licensing costs, especially for advanced features. A Reddit post noted ISE being ~$1500 more expensive than ClearPass in one case.
  • ClearPass: More cost-effective for mixed environments, though advanced features add to the cost.
• User Feedback:
  • ISE: Rated 4.1/5 on Gartner, with 62% recommending it. Users praise its robustness but criticize complexity.
  • ClearPass: Rated 4.4/5 on Gartner, with 88% recommending it. Users highlight ease of use and multi-vendor support.

RecommendationThe choice:

• Cisco ISE:
  • Choose if:
    • Your network is predominantly Cisco equipment, and you want to leverage proprietary features like TrustSec, pxGrid, or integration with other Cisco security tools.
    • You need extreme scalability for very large, geographically distributed networks (e.g., tens of thousands of devices).
    • Advanced device profiling and AI-driven analytics are critical for your switchport security strategy.
  • Best for: Cisco-heavy enterprises needing deep integration and granular control, especially for complex TACACS+ and 802.1X deployments.
• Aruba ClearPass:
  • Choose if:
    • You have a mixed-vendor environment (e.g., Cisco, Aruba, Juniper) and need a solution that works seamlessly across all devices.
    • Ease of use, faster deployment, and a more intuitive interface are priorities.
    • You require strong support for BYOD, guest access, or posture assessment (e.g., OnGuard) for switchport security.
  • Best for: Organizations with diverse network equipment, simpler setup needs, or budget constraints.