<?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 ISE-PIC to Passive Identity Agent Migration in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ise-pic-to-passive-identity-agent-migration/m-p/5323252#M1122348</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;We currently use ISE-PIC as our identity source for identity based policies in our FMC. According to the following EOL notice, ISE-PIC support will end November 30, 2027.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/security/ise-passive-identity-connector/ise-pic-eol.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/security/ise-passive-identity-connector/ise-pic-eol.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Migration options are to upgrade to ISE Advantage or migrate to Passive Identity Agent which was introduced in 7.6 software versions.&amp;nbsp; I'm leaning more towards the Passive Identity Agent, but curious if anyone has gone through this migration yet and what their experience is.&amp;nbsp; We've had no issues with our ISE-PIC as our identity source and our identity rules have worked very well.&amp;nbsp; I just wanted to see if anyone in the community is using the Passive Identity Agent and if it works well for your identity rules.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:46:52 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jmeetze</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-08-22T12:46:52Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISE-PIC to Passive Identity Agent Migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ise-pic-to-passive-identity-agent-migration/m-p/5323252#M1122348</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We currently use ISE-PIC as our identity source for identity based policies in our FMC. According to the following EOL notice, ISE-PIC support will end November 30, 2027.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/security/ise-passive-identity-connector/ise-pic-eol.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/security/ise-passive-identity-connector/ise-pic-eol.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Migration options are to upgrade to ISE Advantage or migrate to Passive Identity Agent which was introduced in 7.6 software versions.&amp;nbsp; I'm leaning more towards the Passive Identity Agent, but curious if anyone has gone through this migration yet and what their experience is.&amp;nbsp; We've had no issues with our ISE-PIC as our identity source and our identity rules have worked very well.&amp;nbsp; I just wanted to see if anyone in the community is using the Passive Identity Agent and if it works well for your identity rules.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:46:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ise-pic-to-passive-identity-agent-migration/m-p/5323252#M1122348</guid>
      <dc:creator>jmeetze</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-08-22T12:46:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE-PIC to Passive Identity Agent Migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ise-pic-to-passive-identity-agent-migration/m-p/5324126#M1122378</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Passive identity agent works fine. I have used it personally as have a couple of my customers.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2025 16:43:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ise-pic-to-passive-identity-agent-migration/m-p/5324126#M1122378</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marvin Rhoads</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-08-25T16:43:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE-PIC to Passive Identity Agent Migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ise-pic-to-passive-identity-agent-migration/m-p/5545377#M1124944</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Marvin&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have problems to this new agent identify logoff sessions of users on their workstations, if i understood correctly it is not work like old agent version(FUA 2.4 that worked until FTD/FMC 6.6)&amp;nbsp; that query workstation by WMI periodicly to check status, this&amp;nbsp;new Passive Identity Agent itself relies on the Kerberos ticketing system to understand user sessions, but the problem is&amp;nbsp; that events logoffs will not appears on Kerberos ids. In my enviroment only appears logoffs events of user when timeout session configured on&amp;nbsp; FMC is hit .&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;In your customers how this behavior about monitored logoff session on workstations works well as old agent version?&lt;BR /&gt;Tks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 23:05:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ise-pic-to-passive-identity-agent-migration/m-p/5545377#M1124944</guid>
      <dc:creator>crusier2015</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-04-14T23:05:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

