The BP thing certainly brought the question to light. Similarly the WEM thing as it was reported (largely only in notes to consolidated re:*.gov services contract) indicated that it was a platform by platform effort - bazillions of miles away from COTS - regardless of whether it was described as COTS in a CC highlighting the early adoption and inevitable takeoff of something that never sold even one more copy.
With WEM being tailored for supply chain attestation it seems at least some of the notions of it being a deep layer APT protection tool for broad consumption is some ways away. Certainly the supply chain application technically mirrors durable APT monitoring and protection, but one could imagine that the number of variables in supply chain attestation are fewer, that a COTS solution may be more achievable as a more confined to task.
There were see-em-once comments (folks rapidly banned and flamed into oblivion) that indicated first hand knowledge of serious flaws in usability/COTS/ready for primetime. Such comments sent me into the tech-bloggosphere to try to get a grip on user experience, but largely to no avail. Except for some stuff on biometrics that Wave blamed on somebody else there was little to find good or bad.
There is other stuff regarding the myopia of the previous admin that I am not inclined to share that can only be described as breathtaking. Once it became clear that PJS played at least some role in the change even if it was only to acknowledge its necessity, it simultaneously became clear to me that it must have been really really bad.
It seems every single suspicion was borne out. Morale. Focus. Resource allocation. Attention to detail. Product quality. Personalities. Interactions with potential clients. Arrogance. Insulting behavior and demeanor. Honesty. Integrity. No stone was left unturned in doing things poorly.
An essay in what not to do, who not to be.
The above content is my opinion.
AI
