<?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: R80.40 SmartConsole RADIUS Integration with Cisco ISE in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-40-SmartConsole-RADIUS-Integration-with-Cisco-ISE/m-p/136598#M24421</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;raised the same question multiple times to our Professional Service. &lt;BR /&gt;There was always a "not possible with CheckPoint".&lt;BR /&gt;Independent which AAA service you are running on the backend, there is always the overhead to create admin accounts in SmartConsole (or API call) as well.&lt;BR /&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2021 06:00:06 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>S_E_</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-12-17T06:00:06Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>R80.40 SmartConsole RADIUS Integration with Cisco ISE</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-40-SmartConsole-RADIUS-Integration-with-Cisco-ISE/m-p/136423#M24403</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have configured SmartConsole users to authenticate with Cisco ISE via RADIUS protocol..for this i had to create users in SmartConsole itself and then map it to a certain authorization profile like write/ro/super user.. these then authenticate with Cisco ISE user base...however, is there anyway i&amp;nbsp; do not have to create users in SmartConsole and login authentication is directly controlled via ISE ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have done this for Checkpoint Gateway CLI access where i dont have to create any users in CLI and they directly authenticate with ISE database.. but cant figure it out for SmartConsole users.. any help is appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2021 13:51:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-40-SmartConsole-RADIUS-Integration-with-Cisco-ISE/m-p/136423#M24403</guid>
      <dc:creator>LostBoY</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-12-15T13:51:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: R80.40 SmartConsole RADIUS Integration with Cisco ISE</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-40-SmartConsole-RADIUS-Integration-with-Cisco-ISE/m-p/136577#M24420</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;As far as I know, no.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 21:32:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-40-SmartConsole-RADIUS-Integration-with-Cisco-ISE/m-p/136577#M24420</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-12-16T21:32:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: R80.40 SmartConsole RADIUS Integration with Cisco ISE</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-40-SmartConsole-RADIUS-Integration-with-Cisco-ISE/m-p/136598#M24421</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;raised the same question multiple times to our Professional Service. &lt;BR /&gt;There was always a "not possible with CheckPoint".&lt;BR /&gt;Independent which AAA service you are running on the backend, there is always the overhead to create admin accounts in SmartConsole (or API call) as well.&lt;BR /&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2021 06:00:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-40-SmartConsole-RADIUS-Integration-with-Cisco-ISE/m-p/136598#M24421</guid>
      <dc:creator>S_E_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-12-17T06:00:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: R80.40 SmartConsole RADIUS Integration with Cisco ISE</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-40-SmartConsole-RADIUS-Integration-with-Cisco-ISE/m-p/136603#M24422</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I see both sides to this, specifically I have some customers that actually prefer it this way as it prevents people with AD or Radius access just provisioning themselves access to logon to SmartConsole...&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2021 07:05:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R80-40-SmartConsole-RADIUS-Integration-with-Cisco-ISE/m-p/136603#M24422</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-12-17T07:05:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

