<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/4776096#M579846</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;hello,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;i had the same issue, when the both are configured the ISE users are authentification periodically, and every time they disconnected. till i have disable the port security on the access ports.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;so it is not support to enable the both on the same access port.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;regards.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:50:09 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mellalBrahim</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-02-15T15:50:09Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513432#M540360</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Team,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do we have any specific recommendations/best practices/caveats in doing 802.1x on switch ports with port security.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Customer is experiencing some issues,&amp;nbsp; we are working with TAC,&amp;nbsp; but just wanted to understand if there was a standard stance on having both configured.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;StartFragment&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;switchport access vlan 3025&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;switchport mode access&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri; color: #b64610;"&gt;switchport port-security&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri; color: #b64610;"&gt;switchport port-security aging time 2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri; color: #b64610;"&gt;switchport port-security maximum 2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri; color: #b64610;"&gt;switchport port-security violation restrict&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri; color: #b64610;"&gt;switchport port-security aging type inactivity&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG style="color: #7e196c; font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;authentication control-direction in&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG style="color: #7e196c; font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;authentication host-mode multi-auth&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG style="color: #7e196c; font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;authentication open&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG style="color: #7e196c; font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;authentication priority dot1x mab&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG style="color: #7e196c; font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;authentication port-control auto&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG style="color: #7e196c; font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;authentication periodic&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG style="color: #7e196c; font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;authentication timer reauthenticate server&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG style="color: #7e196c; font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;mab&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG style="color: #7e196c; font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;dot1x pae authenticator&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;storm-control broadcast level 10.00 3.00&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;storm-control action trap&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;spanning-tree portfast&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 15.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;spanning-tree bpduguard enable&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 14.0pt; font-family: Calibri;"&gt;EndFragment&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:29:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513432#M540360</guid>
      <dc:creator>mwalsh3</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-19T14:29:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513433#M540387</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Michael,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Using port security with 802.1X is not supported with ISE.&amp;nbsp; We recommend using either one or the other but not both.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Tim&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:11:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513433#M540387</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy Abbott</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-19T22:11:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513434#M540401</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Tim.&amp;nbsp; I thought that our stance on that had changed.&amp;nbsp; Appreciate the&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;info.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Mike Walsh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Consulting Systems Engineer&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Enterprise Security Team&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;.:|:.:|:. Cisco&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;www.cisco.com/go/security&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:20:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513434#M540401</guid>
      <dc:creator>mwalsh3</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-19T22:20:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513435#M540409</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You're welcome.&amp;nbsp; If I'm mistaken, maybe one of the team will correct me.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Tim&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2016 22:24:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513435#M540409</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy Abbott</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-19T22:24:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513436#M540419</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's not a matter of supporting it from ISE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is an IBNS (switch) feature and requirement that port security and dot1x cannot be mixed&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Not sure it makes sense anyway as long as you're authenticating securely why the limit?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would reach out to them and explain&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 10:48:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513436#M540419</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jason Kunst</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-20T10:48:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513437#M540425</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Jason.&amp;nbsp; We did indicate that to the customer in terms of not needing&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;port security with 802.1x.&amp;nbsp; So likely some more education needs to go on&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;there,&amp;nbsp; but the customer told us that they found some sort of documentation&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;indicating the 2 configurations can coexist (and we thought maybe we had&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;heard something similar).&amp;nbsp; So we will have them provide that documentation&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;so we can review it,&amp;nbsp; but wanted to start by making sure what our current&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;stance was on this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Mike Walsh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Consulting Systems Engineer&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Enterprise Security Team&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:06:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513437#M540425</guid>
      <dc:creator>mwalsh3</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-20T15:06:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513438#M540430</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi ... it has been over a year since the last reply in this thread. However, here's a follow up:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What's the official position on this right now? Is port-security supported in combination with multi-auth on the Catalyst switches (e.g. 2960-X). To be more precise I'm using c3pl (IBNS2).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or the other way around: How do I restrict the number of MACs on a multi-auth port?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Aug 2017 14:11:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513438#M540430</guid>
      <dc:creator>Johannes Luther</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-07T14:11:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513439#M540436</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I too would like to know the answer to your question. It seems odd to me that from a security perspective Cisco is saying you cannot secure the port with limiting layer 2 because we are authenticating devices with ISE.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What is going to stop a device from doing a MAC address flood attack on a port that is set for multi-auth?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 19:18:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513439#M540436</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alex Martin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-16T19:18:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513440#M540437</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;multi-auth impies each MAC address is authenticated.  It’s a rare case where authenticated endpoints are producing a flood attack.  If the endpoint is authenticated and malicious, I’d be concerned about many other potential problems.  I can see multi-host as a potential flooding concern, but the solution to that would be to not use multi-host &lt;IMG src="https://community.cisco.com/legacyfs/online/emoticons/wink.png" /&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 20:54:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513440#M540437</guid>
      <dc:creator>gbekmezi-DD</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-16T20:54:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513441#M540440</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I agree with George.&amp;nbsp; Port security is, IMO, a clumsier method of solving the same problem.&amp;nbsp; Not only can you filter on the same mechanism in ISE (MAC address), you can filter on things like CDP and SNMP data now, or certificates.&amp;nbsp; By implementing two solutions to the same problem you complicate troubleshooting and expose yourself to another branch of code that might have bugs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 22:59:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513441#M540440</guid>
      <dc:creator>twiggles</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-17T22:59:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513442#M540445</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just thought it might be worth sharing, how in our network, a well authenticated cisco phone , brought whole network down.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco phone was authenticated by ISE, with MAB, using in built profile of ISE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This phone model was effected with a bug, where in it stops the flow of bpdu from its data port to pc port.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;An innocent end user [who doesnt know] connected this phone to network with both pc and data port, [instead of connecting pc to pc port]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Switch's STP function or bpdu guard can't help now, as there is no bpdu, they are filtered by buggy phone, and the data is looping&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, now there is&amp;nbsp; undetected loop here, and via this loop, all the other authenticated mac address's are jumping back and forthe between ports, which caused CPU hike and network outage.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Though multi-auth, buggy phone, and inncocent end user contributed here in creating this loop[it indeed is a rare combination, but i have seen some other industrial type end devices as well doing this bpdu filtering], was wondering if port security had been there, it might have stopped this, as i could have put restriction in terms of number of mac addresses.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any thought, which would help in this scenario&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2018 09:57:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513442#M540445</guid>
      <dc:creator>sameeh.pp</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-02-03T09:57:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513443#M540448</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would recommend reaching out to the switching team&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 03 Feb 2018 17:32:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/3513443#M540448</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jason Kunst</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-02-03T17:32:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/4776096#M579846</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;hello,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;i had the same issue, when the both are configured the ISE users are authentification periodically, and every time they disconnected. till i have disable the port security on the access ports.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;so it is not support to enable the both on the same access port.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;regards.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:50:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/4776096#M579846</guid>
      <dc:creator>mellalBrahim</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-02-15T15:50:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Switch Setup with Port Security</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/5263887#M595149</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I know this is an old post, but multiple people are still looking into mixing ISE and port-security. I agree that it is rare for an authenticated device to flood the network. However, a MAC address flood attack on an ISE-protected port in multi-auth mode can inflate the ISE database of known devices. I have seen instances where an Apple device with a USB Ethernet dongle and enabled MAC randomization inflated the ISE known devices by 20,000 MAC addresses in a relatively short period. This was not an attack but a malfunctioning device. Some USB Ethernet adapters, particularly third-party ones, may not handle MAC addresses consistently. Each random MAC address triggers a new MAB request to Cisco ISE, resulting in thousands of authentication attempts. This behavior was prevented by adding port-security&amp;nbsp;interface GigabitEthernet1/0/1&lt;BR /&gt;switchport mode access&lt;BR /&gt;switchport port-security&lt;BR /&gt;switchport port-security maximum 5&lt;BR /&gt;no switchport port-security mac-address sticky&lt;BR /&gt;switchport port-security aging time 1&lt;BR /&gt;switchport port-security aging type inactivity&lt;BR /&gt;switchport port-security violation restrict&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 23 Feb 2025 04:05:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-switch-setup-with-port-security/m-p/5263887#M595149</guid>
      <dc:creator>dfeliz_TJS</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-02-23T04:05:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

