Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw: Microsoft Cloud Services Aren't FISMA Certified
doperative writes with this excerpt from Groklaw: "If you were as puzzled as I was by the blog fight, as Geekwire calls it, between Google and Microsoft over whether or not Google was FISMA certified, then you will be glad to know I gathered up some of the documents from the case, Google et al v. USA, and they cause the mists to clear. I'll show you what I found, but here's the funny part — it turns out it's Microsoft whose cloud services for government aren't FISMA certified. And yet, the Department of the Interior chose Microsoft for its email and messaging cloud solution, instead of Google's offering even though Google today explains that in [actuality] its offering actually is. It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'"
Is there anyway to filter google/microsoft wars on /. ?
Google and Microsoft are in the same category nowadays....
Maybe Groklaw should stick around?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
When I first heard of this story, I thought it was just some government agency not dotting it's 'i's in the paper work. Now it's really starting to look like some serious BS was going on.
This is precisely why I tried modding the original FUD article down in the firehose. Anyone with half a clue and more than a few years experience in computing could have told you that Microsoft was most likely lying.
Nathan's blog
I believe part of Google's complaint was that additional cost in the government's Microsoft solution was going towards funding in the process of achieving FISMA certification (apologies, but no citation).
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
I guess they both make a good FUD pie.
>It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'
Compared to their responsible FUD which is much better.
Business as usual between business and government - business sells based upon MOU and promises they'll weasel around, while government rarely goes back to review the contract.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Groklaw is actually wrong on the basic fact of certification. Google Apps for Government is not FISMA certified and google itself has stated it hopes to get the certification "updated soon"
Groklaw is right on this. Google Apps has been FISMA certified, and as such Google Apps for governments is too since it's the same platform. What they want to have updated is the explicit mention of 'google apps for govs' which is currently not in the certs.
Or a FUDsicle?
NOT goatse
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
The fact is, that SCO was NEVER about SCO or Unix. It was MS and Sun behind this. Now, MS has moved on to many many more targets. She is needed more now than ever. If I were in Google, I might consider ways to help her out financially.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Bribes anyone?
Yours In D.C.,
K. Trout
I mean no offense, but as a student of history, aren't FUD and Microsoft synonymous?
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
Am I not mistaken that Microsofts original claim was that Google claimed to be but were not, essentially calling out their lie? Did Microsoft also claim they were and this proves them to be lying as well?
Microsoft's FUD is better; all their employees are members of the FUD packer's union...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"And yet, the Department of the Interior chose Microsoft for its email and messaging cloud solution, instead of Google's offering even though Google today explains that in actually its offering actually is"
Since when is a legal brief by one of the litigating parties an unbiased source of "facts"? Everything in this post and in the link is stated as fact, yet all of it comes from a single legal brief filed by Google. I thought /.'s standards for journalism were a little higher.
It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'? 'Fraudulent' would be a better adjective.
"If you were as puzzled as I was by the blog fight, as Geekwire calls it, between Google and Microsoft over whether or not Google was FISMA certified, then you will be glad to know I gathered up some of the documents from the case, Google et al v. USA, and they cause the mists to clear. I'll show you what I found, but here's the funny part — it turns out it's Microsoft whose cloud services for government aren't FISMA certified. And yet, the Department of the Interior chose Microsoft for its email and messaging cloud solution, instead of Google's offering even though Google today explains that in actually its offering actually is. It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'"
Editors!
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
I like how the Groklaw article ends -- to quote
-quote-
Guys, don't you realize by now that Microsoft is Microsoft? You don't remember Get the Facts? All those "independent" studies that found Microsoft products to be the best thing since someone invented the wheel? Forewarned is forearmed.
-end quote-
keep in mind that .You will be assimilated . Resistance is futile !
" We are the Microsoft
"I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
Same correction I posted on groklaw, but never applied to original text.
PJ is busy, ya know?
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
This is also pointed out in TFA.
RTFA. GSA says that Google's is certified. If there's anyone to believe in this case, it is the GSA.
having one product FISMA certified does not immediately make other products "utilizing the same platform" fall under the same certification.
The certification process explicitly states which exact products are certified when it is given.
This is why Google has asked that the certification be updated to include the Google Apps for Government.
Thus, the Google Apps for Government is not, currently, FISMA certified, although it appears to be in the process of obtaining such certification.
That seems unwise. If they pay her then all we'll ever hear is how she's on their payroll, regardless of the quality of the work she does.
If the problem is money then if anything, we should pay her. Anyone feel like starting a "Save Groklaw" fund?
Google claimed certification which it did not have, at best a mistake, at worst a lie. Microsoft did NOT claim certification but is working with the DOI to become certfied. No FUD, just facts.
Learn your place & buy Microsoft(TM) or we'll turn you off!
Not "utilizing the same platform." It is the same platform. The only difference is where the data is located.
FTFA:
We [Google] take the federal government's security requirements seriously and have delivered on our promise to meet them. What's more, weve been open and transparent with the government, and it's irresponsible for Microsoft to suggest otherwise.
Let's look at the facts. We received FISMA authorization for Google Apps from the General Services Administration (GSA) in July 2010. Google Apps for Government is the same technology platform as Google Apps Premier Edition, not a separate system. It includes two added security enhancements exclusively for government customers: data location and segregation of government data. In consulting with GSA last year, it was determined that the name change and enhancements could be incorporated into our existing FISMA certification. In other words, Google Apps for Government would not require a separate application.
This was reflected in yesterday's Congressional testimony from the GSA: "...we're actually going through a re-certification based on those changes that Google has announced with the 'Apps for Government' product offering."
FISMA anticipates that systems will change over time and provides for regular reauthorization -- or re-certification -- of systems. We regularly inform GSA of changes to our system and update our security documentation accordingly. The system remains authorized while the changes are evaluated by the GSA. We submitted updates earlier this year that included, among other changes, a description of the Google Apps for Government enhancements.
Boy, talk about a agency with a bad record for IT issues. Isn't DOI the agency that was told by a court to disconnect from the Internet for their miss-dealing with the Indian Nations. Bozos. http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2352 Yea I can believe they made the choice before they let the RFQ.
All vendors play these games, Nicrosoft just happens to be damned good at it.
Remember their EAL certification on NT? So long as there wasn't a network port or floppy drive installed on the machine, that part buried in the fine print of course.
Or adding the POSIX subsystem to NT to meet a bid spec. Because of course whoever wrote the spec never imagined somebody would write a whole POSIX implementation, get it certified POSIX and then just ignore it. Because I don't think anyone can point to a single damned application that was ever ported into NT's POSIX subsystem and actually deployed. The whole thing was such a scam they actually used the GNU tools to get it up and going as quick as they did, even had source available to comply with the GPL. Guess it wasn't a cancer when it was helping them scam the Department of the Navy.
Or Office supporting a standard file format.... not. They damned near destroyed the ISO bribing and manipulating the standards process to get a standard they don't actually make an effort to implement. Because as bad as OOXML is it is a standard and if they adhered to it interopeability might result and that would be the end of their monopoly.
Democrat delenda est
I didn't even read TFA yet I guessed that, one post above yours. Man, the people here are dumb. Do they even know what Google Apps is at all? Even if GAfG wasn't the same platform, and the FISMA process rated things that did not change with GAfG, it would still undoubtedly qualify.
Hmmm. Good points.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The governmental version of BPOS is FISMA certified. Check before you buy.
As far as I recall, money isn't the issue. She just wants to move on and do something else with her life. Which is understandable.
F**k
It
See
My
Attorney
GSA confirmed it was covered by the same certification.
Now that's something new ... has never happened before, better take note!
The point is that MS does not have FISMA certification, yet MS solutions are somehow already in place where FISMA certified solutions are required. Of course MS never drew attention to its own certification, so MS would never make any claims about themselves. But to call out someone else on it when they aren't in a position to be making any noise shows some real stupidity on their part.
The reason MS falsely claimed that Google wasn't certified was to deflect attention away from their own lack.
Untrue. FISMA certification in advance was not a requirement, and so was irrelevant to the contract at issue. MS raised the issue about Google to distract attention from the fact that Google's substantive claims about the contract being improperly given to Microsoft without allowing competing bids was correct.
That spin isn't correct. The Interior Department chose Microsoft for a number of reasons, base on their current needs. FISMA certification didn't play into it.
In the process of challenging that award, Google boasted that its cloud solution is FISMA certified, which is stretching the truth. An earlier version of a very similar product WAS certified, but their dedicated government product is slightly different. Under FISMA rules, those slight differences need separate review, which has not yet been conducted.
The the crux of the issue is that Google claimed "certification" when what they really have right now is likely FISMA compliance.
Full issue is covered well in this IDC Government Insights Blog, which states that GSA has declined to confirm FISMA compliance for the Google Apps for Government product suite. http://idc-insights-community.com/posts/225609a969