by clicking on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level. Return to the original size by clicking on the page again.
the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.
the zoom using the slider on the top right.
by clicking on the zoomed-in page.
by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues respectively.
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
this publication and page.
displays a table of sections with thumbnails and descriptions.
displays thumbnails of every page in the issue. Click on a page to jump.
allows you to browse through every available issue.
FCW : July 30, 2014
26 July 30, 2014 FCW.COM The trouble started in 2006, when Chuck Coe, assistant inspector general for IT audits and computer crime at the Educa- tion Department, had to issue a subpoena to get access to IP addresses and diagrams from a subcontractor that provided hosting services for the agency. The subcontractor challenged Coe in court out of concern that the investigation might compromise other customers’ security. Coe prevailed, and the subcontractor sepa- rated Education’s data from the public cloud and put it in its own environment. The problem for Coe was that the process took a year. The event stuck in Coe’s mind as the gov- ernment launched its cloud-first policy. He was concerned that IGs, general counsel staff and others charged with federal agen- cy oversight could lose access to important information as it migrated into commercial cloud environments. “You can rely on the IG Act to get access, but it is far better to have it in the contract language itself,” Coe said in an interview with FCW. As chairman of the IT investigations sub- committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Ethics (CIGIE), Coe led an effort to develop standard con- tract language for cloud computing services that could be incorporated into the Federal Acquisition Regulation. IGs need access to cloud-based data to conduct investigations and reviews of Federal Information Security Management Act compliance. The proposed FAR clause includes guar- antees of physical access, documentation and system data for IGs and requires notifica- tion in the event of a security incident that meets the criteria defined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The language would be required in any subcon- tract arranged by prime contractors. However, industry leaders have not been supportive of the proposal, which is current- ly stalled at the Federal Acquisition Regula- tory Council, Coe said. IGs seek more visibility into federal clouds BY ADAM MAZMANIAN The breakdown of the VA’s cloud email deal last year highlights the challenge of maintaining oversight of cloud-based computer systems
July 15, 2014
August 15, 2014