05-02-2024 02:44 AM - edited 05-03-2024 02:32 AM
Excellent article @thomas (weird I cannot tag him),
I wonder if the STALE topic has been taken into account (I don't seem to see it), especially when it comes to EAP certificates, where are explicitly told that their CNs might have nothing to do with the ISE nodes names (and this may definitely trigger the STALE flag)
Gio
05-02-2024 01:41 PM
@Gioacchino - there is a previous posting about this that explains why Cisco did this. It's apparently helping us to find certs that are still valid (in terms of date range) but not effectively aligned to an ISE node. I personally don't like this feature because I have found it to be wrong in cases of Guest Portals. ISE gets confused when the PSN node name does not match the cert's CN (two things that have nothing to do with each other and don't need to be identical).
05-03-2024 02:31 AM
Hi @Arne Bier ,
I have just wondered if this algorithm would apply to EAP auth certs as well, where indeed the CN of the returned cert might have nothing to do with the ISE nodes and the names given it.
My understanding is that Cisco devs didn't do any distinction.
Regards, Gio
05-08-2024 05:18 PM
Unfortunately I don't know how this mechanism works or why we need it.
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide