Talk:Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process

Useful?
I don't know what this article used to contain but currently there really isn't much there. I wonder if this article as it is today is significant or useful enough to exist. Perhaps it should just be deleted. 192.35.35.36 (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Commercial Analysis?
i doubt the neutrality of this article as it seems to be written from a commercial standpoint and includes an apparent judgement as to the efficacy of DIACAP. how about we stick to the encyclopedic facts and study-based conclusions (if any). 99.152.105.78 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the article; I assessed it as Stub; it certainly needs improvement. However there is no commercial bias. I am going to remove the banner.


 * -- Equilibrioception (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this stub still disputed? The banner is still in place, but it is clear that there is no commercial bias, as Equilibrioception stated in January of 2009. TeamMaximus (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

original discussion
One wonders when someone, anyone, is going to propose any sort of "a scientifically sound, philosophically constructive, or intellectually demanding methodology" and what that might actually be.

I have read 100's of pages of goverment documents and specifications and still can't determine how DIACAP applies to an OEM vendor's solution vs. that solution when applied in the context of a site installation and its security policy.

The former case would be more of a product certification (what seems to be called out and referred to in the Common Criteria specifications). The latter case would seem to be what DIACAP was intended for, but would be the responsiblity of the on-base or on-site IT / IS group - not individual OEM solution vendors. Only the on-site personnel would know the overall site security policy, configuration and interoperability details all the equipment and interdependent systems installed.

DISCUSSION: Improper External Linking
There is an external link to DIACAP Knowledge Service. This link requires a DoD PKI certificate. This violates two guidelines for external links (stated as sites to avoid): "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content..." and "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country." DMJ001 (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I can understand DMJ001's objection. But, I would argue strongly against removing that link. The guidelines are guidelines and not laws after all. The DIACAP Knowledge Service is critically important, and many related sites are controlled by PKI/CAC as well. I would recommend adding a note or a link to a page that describes how and where to get a DoD PKI Certificate. --Mmoo9154 (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Second Mmoo0154. Links to the KS should be provided to enable newbie IA and Acquistion professionals to realize that there are hurdles and put them on the forward path. --gatorback

i put that link there when i added to this article a few years back because, as stated, a newbie needs to be re-directed there if they have questions about DIACAP or need more guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.190.125.2 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Department of Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825102450/https://diacap.iaportal.navy.mil/ to https://diacap.iaportal.navy.mil/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122200729/http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/850002p.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/850002p.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)