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.'"
Maybe Groklaw should stick around?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Yes. It's really simple. When those words enter your brain through your eyes, set your brain not to send a signal to your hand to click "Reply".
HTH.
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 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.
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.
Ok, done. Now what?
Does having a witty signature really indicate normality?
Not quite. Google is actually pretty competent in a lot of their service offerings, and they don't try to hold all your data hostage to proprietary technologies. That alone is quite a sharp contrast.
It was tactful of Google to call microsoft's FUD "irresponsible" without condemning the government workers who chose to go with microsoft in violation of their own policies. It's probably likely that points to another very large difference between Google and microsoft -- Google isn't into bribing IT decision makers, they rely on the strength of their offerings.
Caveat Utilitor
I read this article to see if there would be interesting, surprising, or exciting information inside. Apparently not.
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
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
Hey, if the government chose my competetors in clear violation of the rules, I sure as heck would sue too. It's one thing if the government had a fair choice between them, and chose microsoft. But as we are seeing here, this isn't happening. They arbitrarially decided on microsoft in violation of the policies, all while allowing Google to think it had a chance early on.
Google isn't into bribing IT decision makers, they rely on the strength of their offerings.
These days, that practically *is* bribery right there -- oo, your software actually *does what it says on the tin*?? You mean I no longer have to guess which parts of your documentation are outright lies? Want!
'Course, the fact that I'm armpits-deep in trying to figure out MSO 2003 to 2007 formatting cruft issues might color my judgment somewhat. CSS makes a *lot* more sense than Microsoft's never-quite-baked styling. And don't get me started on the abomination that is Office "Open" XML, which I've recently had to become very familiar with in a file format conversion project here at work... >:-(
And then there's SDL's "wonderful" localization software, but that's niche enough I doubt anyone here would have much interest.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
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.
Only a microsoftie or fanboi could feel that way. Anyone rational would, as others have pointed out, be pleased that Google is suing. I don't want my tax dollars squandered on inferior technology and lost productivity due to incompetent implementations. You wouldn't either, if you had any sense.
Caveat Utilitor
Caveat Utilitor
RTFA. GSA says that Google's is certified. If there's anyone to believe in this case, it is the GSA.
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?
Debug it.
Cuz...dayum.
Learn your place & buy Microsoft(TM) or we'll turn you off!
Uh, #failing?
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
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
... Google isn't into bribing IT decision makers, they rely on the strength of their offerings.
That's not how free market works!!! You bride your way to the top.
Dang you Google!!!! Actually offering products that work and people might want!
Get with the program!
Be seeing you...
Hmmm. Good points.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Preferring google over microsoft isn't so much "pro-Google", it's more a matter of choosing the lesser evil. I think most of us in this discussion understand that.
No-one in this discussion is doing that AFAICT.
Theyre suing them because they werent even considered, which was in violation of the rules the tender was supposed to be conducted under.
Sigh. No, they are suing them for not even considering Google, which contravened the rules of the tender.
GSA confirmed it was covered by the same certification.
Microsoft did not say Google apps for government was certified. It said the Department of justice made that claim in official court documents, which it in fact did. Since many of the documents were sealed, and there was no evidence that countered the DOJ's claim, one cannot say that Microsoft intentionally lied.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
That should read Microsoft did not say Google apps for government was NOT certified.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
and they were caught scanning and archiving personal WiFi data, which they didn't admit to until the German government threatened an audit.
Bullshit. Google came forward and said that they made a mistake, that is what started the whole thing. Germany then tried to demand the data, which would have been illegal for them to obtain. Google is the one who came forward saying "oops, looks like we collected this data, we would like to destroy it as it was not meant to be collected" the German government wouldn't let them destroy the data, it was too valuable to them.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/22/urnidgns002570f3005978d80025774a00595fb-idUS226627768520100622
Google flat out indicated "oops, we didn't mean to collect payload data, it was a misconfiguration" and destroyed it upon the request of at least Ireland.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Now that's something new ... has never happened before, better take note!
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.