Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 249 posts

Re: Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

#71

Post by b0rgedhuman »

Pxtl wrote: post #56
debarshri wrote: post #13

Recently tried using Entra ID. There are 12 ways to enforce MFA, 20 days ways to disable users, 4 ways to authenticate users, Add conditional access stuff with 50 variables and templates etc. You can customize the way you want. After configuring it, my colleagues could not log in. Thats one way to secure your organization.

The problem is modern MS doing three contradictory things at the same time: - FB's move fast and break things . Constantly launching new libs. - Linus's we do not break user space . Great commitment to backwards compatibility. - Never deprecating dead products until they've been de facto abandoned for like decades. This combination means every MS product is a labyrinth of overlapping APIs with no guidance as to which…

[dead]

Re: Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

#72

Post by [deleted] »

gertrunde wrote: post #16

It's not very clear from the article, but I get the feeling from the context that the 'pile of shit' quote referenced the package of documentation about the service rather than the service itself. (That seems to be the main complaint, that Microsoft never provided the clear information required to conduct the assessment properly).

[deleted]

Re: Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

#73

Post by dietr1ch »

markus_zhang wrote: post #65
everdrive wrote: post #51

The experts were correct. Azure is the biggest pile of shit I've ever had to work with. Everything feels evolutionary. In other words, a new product in azure is barely a product at all, but a small appendage which totally inherits a bunch of preexisting Azure "stuff." And all this preexisting stuff may not really make sense for the product, and it might inherit stuff that makes the product much worse. But, it doesn't…

> Everything feels evolutionary. That's total "normal" for Microsoft at least from 2018, the year I started working with some of their products (Power BI mostly). They adopted a development model that is early release, fast iteration, and users as testers. No wonder everything feels experimental until much later. Back then I just couldn't use Power BI. But fast forward a few years, I think it got a lot better since m…

> You just have to stick with it for a few years.

So, you have to be a paying tester? Incredible that MS can keep enough businesses as hostage to be able to operate like that.

Re: Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

#74

Post by bmurphy1976 »

klooney wrote: post #67
bmurphy1976 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different than Amazon? Same problem there. Oh, you're using this new service? Need to view the logs? Want a nice friendly UI to do that? Fuck you here's Cloudwatch. Good luck. Just to be clear, I'm responding to the parent comment not the article.

I love https://github.com/lucagrulla/cw , it's like tail for cloudwatch. It's super fast.

That's great but that's not really the problem. The real problem is Amazon likes to release services that depend on other services, but leave the integration work to us.

I'm convinced Amazon has many teams crapping out new features but they don't have the political clout (or manpower) to create a comprehensive product. They are mandated by management to use existing services, and thus we the users suffer because we have to manage all this extra crap and noise just to enable basic functionality.

It's maddening. And then also it's maddening to see another service from a different team that was able to throw off these shackles and actually make a product that is self contained. You get a taste of how good things could be, and then you're thrown right back into the IAM/SQS/Cloudwatch/Cloudformation/Policy/everything else under the sun soup.

Re: Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

#75

Post by debarshri »

bmurphy1976 wrote: post #61
everdrive wrote: post #51

The experts were correct. Azure is the biggest pile of shit I've ever had to work with. Everything feels evolutionary. In other words, a new product in azure is barely a product at all, but a small appendage which totally inherits a bunch of preexisting Azure "stuff." And all this preexisting stuff may not really make sense for the product, and it might inherit stuff that makes the product much worse. But, it doesn't…

How is this different than Amazon? Same problem there. Oh, you're using this new service? Need to view the logs? Want a nice friendly UI to do that? Fuck you here's Cloudwatch. Good luck. Just to be clear, I'm responding to the parent comment not the article.

Amazon is selling servers and storage. If you need to see logs properly, then get a right tool for it. Cloudwatch is a stop gap solution.

Re: Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

#76

Post by lostlogin »

debarshri wrote: post #45
lostlogin wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they email the living shit out of you This sounds like LinkedIn.

Wait a minute. It is owned by Microsoft.

It’s a relentless horror. I signed my wife up to track down a driver that crashed into her.

I think LinkedIn spam is worse than being in a crash.

Re: Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

#78

Post by bmurphy1976 »

debarshri wrote: post #75
bmurphy1976 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different than Amazon? Same problem there. Oh, you're using this new service? Need to view the logs? Want a nice friendly UI to do that? Fuck you here's Cloudwatch. Good luck. Just to be clear, I'm responding to the parent comment not the article.

Amazon is selling servers and storage. If you need to see logs properly, then get a right tool for it. Cloudwatch is a stop gap solution.

See my other comment. Logs are just one small symptom of a larger problem of poorly integrated very complex services where the complexity is pushed onto the users and not properly managed by Amazon. Which sounds very much like the problems with Azure.

Re: Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

#79

Post by DrewADesign »

everdrive wrote: post #51

The experts were correct. Azure is the biggest pile of shit I've ever had to work with. Everything feels evolutionary. In other words, a new product in azure is barely a product at all, but a small appendage which totally inherits a bunch of preexisting Azure "stuff." And all this preexisting stuff may not really make sense for the product, and it might inherit stuff that makes the product much worse. But, it doesn't…

Absolute contempt for their users at every level. It’s so transparent. This is the end game of anticompetitive practices for decades— they just don’t have to try anymore… for now. Some day they’ll either have to compete in good faith or sink. I doubt that will happen soon, but someday.

Re: Despite doubts, federal cyber experts approved Microsoft cloud service

#80

Post by klooney »

> Potential Conflict of Interest: The government relies, in part, on third-party firms to vet cloud technology, but those firms are hired and paid by the company being assessed.

Hah. First time looking at FedRAMP?

The real reason for this, of course, is accounting, it moves it off of the government's books.

Post reply on HN