Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wins Homeland Security Contract
syzme writes "According to The Register (as well as Reuters and News.com), 'The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has signed a deal for Microsoft software worth something in the region of $100 million, covering servers and over 140,000 desktops. This does not however mean that Microsoft and its hench-OEM Dell are poised to hoover up all of the Department's lovely IT budget, nor indeed that this is all new money for them; largely, it seems to be more a case of Microsoft holding onto business it's already got.'" This shouldn't be much of a surprise -- remember the Federal government is already Microsoft's biggest customer.
So much for security in our homeland...
Given Microsoft's record of continual failure with regards to security, I've always thought putting MS in charge of security (as with Palladium) was like asking the wolf to guard the sheep.
Somewhere, in a deep dark cave, some terrorists are having a jolly good laugh.
Beep beep.
Good news: Orwellian homeland securty is now going to lose all your data as fast as it collects it.
Bad News: "In other news, After extensive backround checks by homeland security, Mr. Nedal Nib Amaso is now head of NTSB....."
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Okay, in light of this purchase, the department has been renamed to the Department of Homeland Insecurity.
Hahaha. Oh I kill me, I do.
The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
The Homeland Security Advisory System's current threat level has been elevated to 'blue' (Immanent threat of terrorism due to blue screen)
Jon Bardin
Security can only be as good as the most insecure point, which doesn't make me feel to good about Microsoft winning this contract.
Imagine this senario: DoHS employee writes up a memo about who they are currently profiling and what information they have on file and saves it to his hard drive. Some terrorist writes an e-mail virus designed to send word file back to an account he can access. He then sends this virus to a department account where it spreads and sensitive information is transmitted back to the terrorist.
Virusus like these have already been proven viable in MS Outlook. One can only hope that they are taking the appropriate measures to ensure that all employees have their computers locked down tight.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
One of the reasons the Feds are MS's biggist customer is becouse almost every computer has two, even three licences. Most organizations buy a site licences and then get one with the Dell PC. If only Dell sold PC's without licences...
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Since MS did a bid, can we get a list of competing bids as well as criteria? It would be interesting to review...
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
Isn't that supposed to be: "Well, there goes the Network Neighborhood."
This shouldn't be much of a surprise -- remember the Federal government is already Microsoft's biggest customer.
No, it shouldn't.
The US federal government is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the world.
The above statement seems to imply something ugly, when in fact MANY companies' largest customer is the federal government.
...will be illegal and a sign of terrorism?
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
That it's a lot of money. Otherwise it seems to be pretty par for the course and nothing really noteworthy.
Now a move AWAY from Microsoft would be news.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
"This security patch addresses both previous and newly discovered security vulnerabilities pertaining to homeland security."
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
that DHS already has many Open Source (and non-MS) apps widely deployed... They are extensively using Apache, Squid, Open Office (in some places) and things like Java for other day to day operations...
t ec h.htm
Some of their integration efforts are mentioned here:
http://www.govexec.com/features/1202/1202manage
(Disclaimer: I work for DHS.)
That they'd make use of SE Linux, since they helped develop it.
Also, you'd think they'd want a variety of O/S's, ect, for security purposes.
It shall be very funny/ironic when "Homeland Security" gets hacked due to some newfound MS flaw. Actually, i'm frightened, as they will probably have ever detail they can glean from every person they can, opened up to some arsehole
Maybee theyre building a huge honeypot....
if common sense was common, wouldn't everyone have it?
I for one welcome our new technology overlords!
I see you are trying to bomb a country.
Would you like help?
-Get help with bombing the country
-Just bomb the country without help
This is known as "Security through inaccessibility"
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.
Given Microsoft's record of continual failure with regards to security, I've always thought putting MS in charge of security (as with Palladium) was like asking the wolf to guard the sheep.
Given that 'homeland security' is really a euphemism for something between 'Big Brother' ("total informational awareness" etc.) and 'Political Police', I for one am relieved they are sufficiently incompetent to select Microsoft as their platform. This may, and I stress may, slow down our slide into a complete surveillance society submerged beneath ubiquitous governance.
Or not, as it may be just the prelude needed for even more draconian legislation and public hysteria when Microsoft's chronic security issues begin to affect our perceived safety, leading to the unpleasant irony of having the technical ability to monitor and ubiquitously govern every man, woman, child, dog, cat, and garden slug in the country diminished while providing the political excuse for accelerating legislation through congress that makes the former pre-Gorbochov soviet parliament look positively liberal by comparison.
What we do know for certain is that it puts a lot of money in the pockets of a convicted monopolist, which isn't helpful to anyone (other than said monopolist).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So much for Homeland "Security".
Now now, let's not be so quick to criticize. Securing Microsoft systems is extremely simple:
Of course, the government is not only collecting information on individuals, they collect it on anything we're involved in, including our jobs and businesses.
It's pretty well-documented that Microsoft's software is full of holes and that they're not particularly good at fixing them. Witness Microsoft's own computers being taken down by a worm. My concern is that we've just given not-so-well-intentioned foreign parties a free pass to take a look at everything that's going on in the United States. Holes and hacks will be found. If they really cared about "security," they'd use a blend of different programs and software. Sure, a little more work, but a lto more work to penetrate.
IAAL
'There are three stages in your reintegration,' said O'Brien. 'There is learning, there is understanding, and there is acceptance. It is time for you to enter upon the second stage.' ...
Do you remember writing in your diary, "I understand how: I do not understand why"? It was when you thought about "why" that you doubted your own sanity. ...
'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --'
He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.
'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'
'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
... courtesy of the rejected post machine. The government sector news sites are always good - and usually better - for details about contracts of this sort:
Microsoft/Dell Gets $90-$120 Million Homeland Security Contract
Microsoft has been awarded the five-year, $90 million Department of Homeland Security contract for desktop and server software. The contract will be managed by Dell and will provide the DHS with 140,000 desktops running Windows XP and Microsoft Office Professional. When consolidated with current agreements, the contract amounts to a six-year agreement covering 144,000 desktops, worth between $110 million and $120 million. This follows the $478 million, six-year deal with the Army announced last month. More at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Washington Post, InformationWeek, the Register , eWEEK, and Reuters.
I'm not happy when my government uses a convicted and virtually unchanged monopoly for big $$$ business.
I thought the United States government was supposed to protect the market from these monopolies, not protect the monopolies from the market.
Eric
"Brevity is the soul of wit." -Polonius, Hamlet.
The US government is pretty much *everyones'* biggest customer.
"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has signed a deal for MandrakeSoft Linux software worth something in the region of $0 (free), covering servers and over 140,000 desktops."
Instead they paid $100 million of our tax dollars to a company who is breaking antitrust laws. Maybe Microsoft isn't the bad guy here.
Is there any other real option for the government? I'm assuming everyone here wants a distro of Linux to be the government's OS of choice. Which one? Red Hat? Are they a large enough company to ensure 24/7 tech support on the governments' 140,000 computers? I don't know, and I don't think the government does either. I think Microsoft was the safe choice. Granted it's not the more secure operating system, but their needs go beyond that.
We are now at threat level "BLUE"...............
please reboot.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The reason that everyone (including the federal guvnment) still uses Microsoft is because, It Just Works(TM). I can pull windows out of its box, put it in my computer, and have it running in about 30 minutes. I don't have to manually pick out kernel drivers like with debian, I don't have to worry about RedHat not recognizing half my hardware (like my ATI or my AC97 sound chip). I can take any lance corporal off the field, and with windows, he's most likely to know how to at least do basic stuff like surf the web, read e-mail, etc. If the guvment were to use Linux, they would have to spend additional manpower on installation, more man power keeping those boxes up to date (or pay money for RedHats up2date service), not to mention retraining a lot of staff on how to use these computers.
Another reason for the Government choosing Windows is that they probally already have a majority of their services on windows, and to ask a Four Star General to approve a massive budget to switch away from what works to what might not work will take quite a bit of effort.
Wow....that karma just burned brightly....
If you think about the reliability, uptime, and random reboot problems with many MS products then this could be great for us citizens.
We know all of the attempts to restrict our personal freedoms with wire taps, internet/email monitoring, and the ideology to put all of the collected info into a massive database for those who have the clearance to peruse. The best thing is, although, they might have your most personal info it will probably be collected and stored by a MS product.
What does that mean? It means it will either disapear or just spontaneously fragment and corrupt itself! Why our goverment chooses bloatware over dependablity and functionality is beyond me but they were never known for being frugal or making the best decisions in terms of bang for the buck. I'm sure MS is practically giving it away just to keep the business anyway.
It makes you wonder how many fuckups happen just out of using MS software. I'm not saying it's the worst or best because it does have it's use but since this story is about our goverment using it I'd prefer a more stable and dependable os/desktop. When I think of mixing MS software with our goverment all I see is the movie "Wargames" and that's not a nice thought.
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
...will we be handing out EULAs to anyone that wants to have diplomatic ties with us?
"...By installing this embassy, you absolve the United States Government of any responsibility for lost revenue, citizens, or infrastructure. Furthermore, you agree that you will not attempt to negatively influence the revenue, citizens, or infrastructure of the United States..."
blog |
Think how Larry Ellison feels!
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
I hear the Coast Guard is trying to get an exemption from having to use Windows.
:-D
Too many open ports.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
I'm sure they'll secure those machines well, padlocks, keycard entry systems.
:)
Oh you meant the OS....
One night, I was like, writing a report on how Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake from Nigeria, when all of a sudden it went berserk, the screen started flashing, it was like BEEP BEEP BEEP and the whole paper just disappeared. All of it. And it was a good report! I had to cram and rewrite it really quickly. Needless to say, my rushed report wasn't nearly as good, and now Tony Blair is like, in danger of losing his job!
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Terrorists applaud selection of Microsoft for Department of Homeland Security.
Information Technology consultants for Al Qaeda were pleased with the the US government selection of Microsoft to supply the Dept. of Homeland Security with servers and over 140,000 desktops. Mohammed Al'Hacker beamed, "Microsoft systems allow for unmatched file sharing and remote access. We will save millions of dollars by simply being able access Homeland Security databases over the internet, rather than having to pay for bribes and expensive operatives. We are so pleased that the infidels chose 'open data' over 'open source.'" ....
Bin Laden: All Your Homeland Security Are Belong To Us!
Tom Ridge: What you say?!
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
...I've always thought putting MS in charge of security (as with Palladium) was like asking the wolf to guard the sheep.
Perhaps one of these analogies would work, too:
It's like putting a steel door on a cardboard box.
It's walking into a battlefield backwards.
It's like carrying a tiger-repellant rock.
It's like driving eyes-closed because "God is my pilot (or whatever)"
Basically, Microsoft + Homeland Security = a smoking hole that will become the ocean separating Mexico and Canada.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
As others have observed, Microsoft is not the big winner here, although it is a winner. It gets to consolidate and aggregate its existing business, and sure it's probably squeezing Apple, IBM, etc some more here and there with this contract. And sure, it has locked down this portion of market share for FIVE MORE YEARS, which is bad. But...
The big winner is Dell. It's administering all this software business. It skims whatever it can before passing the lion's share on to Microsoft. It acquires a huge list of potential "customers" and tries to sell them Dell hardware. And it squeezes out a bunch of small fry who were ensconced in cozy government contracts. Excerpted from Government Computer News:. html:
http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/22743-1
The department reached the agreement earlier this month, after inviting nine bidders, including GTSI Corp. of Chantilly, Va., and MarkSoft Management Resources Inc. of Canterbury, N.H., to present proposals.
Seriously, who are those two companies that got mentioned? Either wannabees, or hasbeens. Dell ate their lunch, and Dell has some other merchandise it would enjoy selling to the 280,000 eyeballs it just acquired for the next five years.
That'll be funny right up until a worm gets into some highly cleared officer's laptop and sends out a copy of "OperationChineseFreedom.doc" to his Address Book.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
I dont' know man, you're linking unneducated anti linux FUD. It's not a matter of opinion, but lack of information.
I would be curious to know if you've actually looked at data, and come to the conclusion that Linux is less secure than Windows stuff. If that's the case, I might suggest that you keep on reading and get the whole picture!
Cuz security really couldn't get much worse than MS offerings.
What I'm saying is, wether or not you mean to troll, that's the net effect. If you do have a compelling reason as to why Linux would have been a poor security choice (clue: your link isn't it!), then I'm sure most people would like to hear it.
(moderators: yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think I just took the bait on this troll)
The single largest company ever to warn people not to use their software for life-and-death situations, is now going to have an exclusive with the government to help prevent the next 9/11 attack.
Considering that the only (repeat: only ) effective Microsoft security measures to date are the ones that prevent people who've already stolen Windows-XP from upgrading it, it's pretty safe to say that we can all prepare to live with having any enemy who wants to know something knowing it while substantial numbers of us sit around glowing in the dark.
Today's bonus question: 'will the government's relationship with Microsoft include a EULA that precludes the government's suing them when they screw up?'
It's amazing what you can do to a society with enough money.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
I did some short term consulting work with a company recently to help them prepare some bids on the last BAA (Broad Agency Announcement) sent out by the DHS. The scope and scale of the projects that were in the request were quite interesting, with some that were tailor made for linux (wearable computing initiatives, anyone?).
We haven't heard any updates on the bid selection, but after looking at a good portion of those potential projects I can truthfully say that Microsoft is going to have a really tough time filling the required roles for many of them, let alone doing it securely.
Reality isn't so black and white as this, and I know plenty of MS-centric people who know what they're talking about, just as many Mac people who know their wares, many of whom more experienced than me I'm sure. But to say that Linux has zero support suggests that documentation isn't counted, which I count and count on daily. Speaking of documentation, Try using MS's knowledgebase to find an article on a specific issue, then hop to google.com/linux and look up how to do something specific in Linux, then tell me which one procuded a usable answer faster and easier.
As far as why more people don't use Linux, or any otehr OS, why not ask the hardware vendors that one. They sell the systems with Windows pre-installed to customers who have bought into the marketing over the years and are now floating though MS-land on auto-pilot. Someone interested in using Linux still for the most part has to install it themselves, something most people have no desire to do even to spite the OS they might percieve as evil (personally I don't think MS does anything any other profit-motivated entity would do given the position they're in; Everyone wants to own a monopoly in business, that's the reason we have public and consumer rights laws right?).
I hear end-users say "Gates is evil", "Microsoft is an monopoly", etc, all the time, though relearning their own computer is too much to do to put their feelings into some action. I can't blame them. If I wasn't interested in this stuff in the first place I'd probably be in the same situation.
Also when was the last time you saw an MS box act as a DDOS drone?
Your kidding right? Look here.
As a die hard OpenStep X user, I have to take issue with the idea that it runs hardly any software. I suppose that your comment is born of jealousy that OS X can run pretty much all of the software that Linux can as well as a fair proportion of commercial software that will remain beyond the reach of Linux users until someone gets enough mindshare to stabilize the libraries.
FUD aside, I do agree that governments should stay the hell away from any single source supplier like MS or Apple, no matter how good their wares are. It's simply not good enough to spend hundreds of millions, or even billions of tax payer's money on something that could disappear in a puff of smoke if the head bean-counter somewhere decides it's no longer economically viable to keep producing it.
Using open source doesn't neccessarily guarantee that a piece of software will continue to be made indefinitely, but it almost defintely does assure that somewhere out there is someone who knows enough about a given piece of software to patch security holes and misfeatures in the software, and it is quite likely that even if x86 hardware ceases to be available an open source OS will find new hardware to run on that can be introduced in the next upgrade cycle.
OS/X, Windows or Solaris = tied down
*BSD, *Linux* = free to move
Governments should be free to move rather than at the behest of corporations. Of course, the reality is quite different. Pester your local politician about change, I do.