Microsoft attacks Google over security

[onehandle]

Source: AP

SAN FRANCISCO – Microsoft Corp. is lashing out at Google Inc., extending hostilities between two of the most prominent corporations in the technology industry.

Microsoft claimed Google has been misleading customers about the security certification of its suite of software programs for governments. Microsoft's deputy general counsel, David Howard, blogged on Monday about a newly unsealed court document that shows that "Google Apps for Government" hasn't been certified under the Federal Information Security Management Act.

Google's website claims it has, and the company has attested to that in court documents. "It's time for Google to stop telling governments something that is not true," Howard wrote.

The documents are part of a Google lawsuit alleging that it was improperly frozen out of competing for a U.S. Department of Interior contract to build a new e-mail system for 85,000 employees — a contract that Microsoft won. A judge earlier sided with Google's belief that the bidding was rigged to favor Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft, and issued a preliminary injunction while the two sides duke it out.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110411/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_microsoft_google

---

Ironic at first blush, but since Google is the new Microsoft, but even more deceptive...

[hobbit709]

1. Pot, meet kettle.

[ixion]

17. exactly.

[Renew Deal]

2. That should be fairly easy to prove or refute.

And I doubt Microsoft is wrong.

[boppers]

4. Microsoft is claiming that different branding on the same product is reason for non-certification.

---
Google insists it's not deceiving anyone, since a less-robust version of the product has already been certified under FISMA.
"We did not mislead the court or our customers," the company said in a statement, noting that "Google Apps" received a FISMA clearance in July 2010, and that "Google Apps for Government" is "the same system with enhanced security controls that go beyond FISMA requirements."
The documents show that Mountain View, Calif.-based Google is in the process of applying for certification for "Google Apps for Government."
---

It's basically bullshit, with Microsoft claiming minor version changes should begin the whole process again... which is the kind of tactic that lost them the contract in the first place.

[Renew Deal]

6. That's a legitimate claim.

If there are "enhanced security" features in the software Google is pushing and the certification board hasn't seen them, then that software isn't certified. The "certification" business is very important in IT. Microsoft got busted on the "Vista Ready" bullshit a couple years ago.

I once needed an application to run on Windows XP which was recently released. The vendor claimed the software was "XP Compatible" or something like that. It was one of the higher end MS software certifications meaning that it was completely compatible with XP and that was certified by Microsoft. It seemed unlikely to me, so I started asking questions and found out the software didn't achieve that certification. That and other dishonest behavior by the vendor turned me off to them. This is the same thing.

Microsoft won the contract according to the article.

[boppers]

7. Re: The contract.

"A judge earlier sided with Google's belief that the bidding was rigged to favor Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft, and issued a preliminary injunction while the two sides duke it out."

They won it, and then lost it.

As far as "The "certification" business is very important in IT", I think we probably come at the industry from very different angles... while Microsoft *has* made a business out of their diploma mills, and compatibility programs, I highly doubt they reapply for certification on all their products every patch Tuesday... and Microsoft Certified Solitaire Expert (MCSE) is enough reason to throw away a resume, as some of the certs are so tainted as to be worse than meaningless.

[Rage for Order]

10. Just so I'm clear...

Google says the software is certified, but in the meantime Google is in the process of applying for certification for "Google Apps for Government."

Why would Google spend all this money to prove that Google Apps for Government is certified if it already is? Why not just show the certification they received from the US government and end this bogus Microsoft lawsuit.

Maybe I'm not enough of a computer whiz to understand.

:shrug:

[boppers]

11. Because if a pointless exercise defeats a legal argument, it can save money.

It's not a computer thing, it's a lawyer thing. They showed the certificate, Microsoft claimed it wasn't a REAL birth certificate, because the name was different now, and they no longer weighed the same as they did at birth.

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/government/trust.html

[Rage for Order]

12. Well, the law does tend to get hung up on the particulars

Both companies have white-shoe corporate law firms so there is no underdog in this match. Let them duke it out.

[boppers]

14. It's desktop and closed servers vs. the cloud.... it's worth billions, easy.

At the end, the lawyers will have won the most, as such things tend to turn out.

[Corruption Winz]

3. Shockingly not hard to believe. n/t

[chowder66]

5. MeeoOWW. :)

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

8. I thought this was going to be a story from The Onion. nm

[TacticalPeek]

9. Thanks for that headline.

Mondays can always use a good belly laugh.

[msongs]

13. who here remembers when google was not just another corporate enemy of the people? nt

[boppers]

15. Me! Me!

As soon as any company makes money, though, it is evil. By pop-culture-definition.

[provis99]

16. oh, that's rich.

Meanwhile, I just got my 490th Microsoft Windows 7 security patch...

[bemildred]

18. Oh good, Godzilla versus The Thing.

:popcorn: