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
Oh, thank god Google says it is certified. That really clears up the misunderstanding over it saying it is certified and potentially not being.
I don't really care which company it is, but if they say they are certified they better pony up and prove it. Particularly if it is for something security. If this were any other combination of companies I doubt that people would be as revved up about one calling the other out. Companies should be challenging each other and trying to beat one another. It's part of that game called business.
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.
Microsoft never claimed they were....
>It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'
Compared to their responsible FUD which is much better.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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"
Secondly, one of the main reasons Google's bid was rejected by the DOI was over infrastructure concerns. Google does not have private infrastructure for Apps customers, one of the main disadvantages vs the MS product.
Lastly the MS complaint over FISMA certification was due to Google claiming it had it for Google Apps for Government when it still does not. MS never claimed to have it either.
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?
"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.
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!
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
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
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