Category Archives: Security

National Eggnog Day

December 24 is a celebration in America of copying a recipe from Britain, making an inexpensive version of it, then proclaiming it as our own.

As with most things considered distinctly American, eggnog is a tweaked and tinkered version of an import. The story, as I heard it many years ago, is that a fashionable drink that grew during the Tudor dynasty (1485-1603) called syllabub was imported and renamed in America, as it died off in England.

The drink started with the fact that only the well-to-do of England before the 1700s could own cows and afford to drink milk fresh hot from the source let alone laced with exotic spices and expensive alcohol.

THE principal sale of milk from the cow is in St. James’s Park. The once fashionable drink known as syllabubs — the milk being drawn warm from the cow’s udder, upon a portion of wine, sugar, spice, — is now unknown.

The once fashionable celebratory drink is now unknown, says this person in 18th Century London. It was relegated to the recipe books such as the 1786 “Complete English Cook“, buried among the many other options.

1786-complete-english-cook

What about Posset?

Some have written that Posset, not Syllabub, is the correct lineage for today’s celebratory drink. I find this to be a leap, given that London cookbooks of 1762 categorized Posset in this context:

I. Of Soups, Broths and Gravy.
II. Of Pancakes, Fritters, Possets, Tanseys

Pancakes, Fritters and Tanseys all are fried, which leaves Possets to be cooked into a curdled cream or even a custard.

Some have pointed to an even starker context: Shakespeare’s Macbeth reference to the posset as a healthy nightcap, a drink conveniently easy to poison before bed.

The doors are open, and the surfeited grooms
Do mock their charge with snores. I have drugg’d their possets
That death and nature do contend about them,
Whether they live or die.

The poison context seems a bit off. Spiced anything is easy to poison. Anyway the greater context is the “health” aspects of a posset, which were rooted in medieval times. Eating a cooked (sanitized) protein and alcohol slurry may have given the appearance of curing the sick because better than not eating at all. (From Eearly English Book Online “Food and Physick”, for which 18th Connect gives a sneak preview)

Another special Preservative: Take an Egge, make a hole in the top of it, take out the white, and the yolk, and fill the shell only with Saffron; roast the shell and Saffron together, in Embers of Charcole, untill the shell wax yellow; then beat shell and all together in a Morter, with half a spoonful of Mustard-Seed: Now so soon as any suspition is had of Infection, dissolve the weight of a French Crown, in ten spoonfulls of Posset-Ale, drink it luke-warm, and sweat upon it in your naked Bed

Enjoy your medicine. Yuck. In other words, the medicinal muck of a posset served in a person’s darkest hour, as they lay waiting for death, is unlikely to be a direct root for today’s party serving eggnog. There is a transition/fork at the very least from posset to syllabub, or perhaps a disconnect, when milk with spice and booze became fashionable for partying. A modern descendant of posset is more likely to be kumyss.

I mean syllabub, hot milk pulled from the udder and mixed with flavorings, is typically for celebration not solitary nightcaps or plagued deathbeds. Thus syllabub makes far more sense when you think about what you’re doing with eggnog today.

The demise and intellectual property transfer of syllabub

Serving syllabub at parties lost favor in England around the time its colony (e.g. America) was importing anything it could for celebratory significance. Dairy economics of the colonies were a key factor in transfer of high-brow beverage to common table. Privileged recipes of status in England easily were transformed into replicas with new resource abundances (also found with Cheddar cheese).

There was a small catch to the American colony use of syllabub. Import costs for fine wines and liquors forced change in the ingredients. Alcohol found easily on ships sailing in America — rum of the Caribbean — was an obvious substitute to start with. A more likely substitution later was based on variations of whiskey such as the corn-based bourbon (rum trade and imports were scuttled during the Revolution).

Americans became so accustomed to the English idea of a milk and spiced alcohol drink for celebrations, despite the decline in England, that an attempt at the US Army academy to regulate consumption in 1826 led to dangerous riots.

A few of the cadets took Thayer’s regulations [of eggnog] as a challenge and intended to outsmart the superintendent and his staff by having the best holiday celebration West Point had seen. The term “celebration” may not apply in this case, but the incident of the “Eggnog Riot” was something West Point had never experienced. At least seventy cadets took part in the shenanigans, resulting in assaults on two officers and destruction of North Barracks, as some of the students, in their inebriated state, had smashed several windows.

This level of anti-authority violence might need perspective. Consider how in the 1800s Americans carried forward another aristocratic tradition from England. The British Kingdom passed its Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. It took another 30 years and a bloody protracted Civil War started by the Southern states before America could abolish slavery. In 1913 a book called “Dishes and Beverages of The Old South” even recommended making syllabub as an “Old South” tradition for special occasions!

Harking back to the supper table – syllabub, as nearly as I recall, was made of thick cream lightly reinforced with stiffly beaten white of egg – one egg-white to each pint – sweetened, well flavored with sherry or Madeira wine, then whipped very stiff, and piled in a big bowl, also in goblets to set about the bowl…

Thus, today in America what we really celebrate is the commodity effect, aristocratic-like access made inexpensive, to fresh milk and alcohol. Eggnog is not the only product like this, borrowed and interpreted from the wealthy abroad without attribution. There are many others such as cheddar cheese mentioned above (officially only from the caves of Cheddar and at some point declared by a King the finest cheese in England).

Here’s a fun chart of eggnog showing up in menus over time in America, from the New York Public Library, where you can see price:

eggnog-menus

Isn’t big data amazing?

A new recipe

Given this history, here’s my simple recipe to celebrate America’s National Eggnog Day:

  • Six Tbsp of Grassmilk
  • Six grass-fed eggs
  • Six cups of Wild Turkey 101 Rye
  • 1 tsp fresh grated nutmeg
  • 1 tsp black pepper
  • 1Tbsp Grass-fed butter (Note: Irish butter is often cited as grass-fed. It really is only about 300 days a year of grass feed. German butter can be grass fed year round. An excellent alternative butter is from Yak)

Mix the milk, eggs and spices. Heat a saucepan with the butter. Pour the whiskey and hand remaining five cups to your guests. Take a sip of the whiskey. Pour the dairy mixture into the pan and wait until it’s cooked. Take another sip of the whiskey. Scramble the mixture in the pan, adding other ingredients as desired. Sip the whiskey. Serve scrambled eggs to your guests as you all enjoy your unspoilt American whiskey.

Now that’s American.

An old recipe

On the other hand, if you still think you want to drink the stuff of origin ala the Tudors (or at least the Victorian version of it, before it disappeared), the BBC offers this recipe from Mrs. Beeton’s 1861 “Book of Household Management

  • 570ml/1 pint sherry or white wine
  • 1/2 grated nutmeg
  • sugar to taste
  • 900ml/1 1/2 pt milk
  1. Put the wine into a bowl, with the grated nutmeg and plenty of pounded sugar, and add it to the milk.
  2. Clouted cream may be held on the top, with pounded cinnamon or nutmeg and sugar; and a little brandy may be added to the wine before the milk is put in.
  3. In some countries, cider is substituted for the wine: when this is used, brandy must always be added. Warm milk may be poured on from a spouted jug or teapot; but it must be held very high.

…and just remember when she says jug or teapot that’s a reference to an aristocrat’s cow udder tended by his milk girl.

Don’t get me started on the security issues in trusting an aristocrat’s milk girl. Seriously, auditing milk girls for fraud was important business in old England. Milk often was diluted with water, for example, if the customer wasn’t watching carefully.

Instead of that hassle, just head out to a local dairy in America and ask if they will let you pull an udder for hot milk into a large bowl to celebrate Eggnog Day.

Bring this recipe and show it to the dairy:

Reynolds, Mrs. George W. M. (1871). The Household Book of Practical Receipts. 18th ed.. London: John Dicks. p. 12.

Updated to add: Compare and contrast the original Syllabub with President Eisenhower’s Whitehouse cook book, which you can find in his archive today. Here’s a recipe for eggnog that prefers bourbon, “coffee cream” and doesn’t even mention spice until a garnish at the end.

Ikenogg

Top Diesel Myths and Why Diesel Hybrids Make Perfect Sense

Since 2004 I have been driving a diesel engine. The B5.5 generation VW Passat gets about 40 mpg despite being a full-sized vehicle with the towing strength equivalent of a Ford F150 pickup. It’s really quite amazing to consider how efficient it runs. On a trip from San Francisco to Las Vegas, which is approximately 600 miles, I did not have to stop to refuel and saved almost an hour off the total time.

Even a small time spent looking at or driving a modern diesel vehicle tends to teach you several things about diesel myths:

  1. They’re expensive: Despite being loaded with all the possible upgrades diesel cars can be less expensive off the line than a gasoline equivalent model. I paid $5K LESS in 2004 to get a diesel Passat instead of gasoline. When I told others they went to the dealer and confirmed the same thing. My parents bought a brand new 2005 VW Passat TDI after they saw the sticker price was lower than the sticker on gasoline. Diesel vehicles apparently can be priced very competitively. And then, after paying less, the value of my car actually increased.

    Some suggest diesel engines now must be more durable (due to compression load and high-pressure) and therefore more expensive to build than a gasoline engine. This is not, however, an argument against diesel. It could be another reason FOR buying diesel; a lot like saying a larger more powerful gasoline engine will be more expensive to build than a weaker small and inefficient one. Charging a premium for better performance/efficiency/durability obviously is no real barrier for auto sales, right Ford Tough?

  2. They’re noisy: Disesel vehicles are quiet, really quiet. I’ve said this before but when the Audi and Peugeot hugely powerful (1,000 ft/lb torque) supercars the 24 hours of Le Mans the fans told me they were disappointed. They no longer could hear the roar of engines from cars in the lead. These engines are incredibly powerful yet understated. The vehicles that lost after stopping to be refueled more often, such as Ferraris, Porsches and Corvettes, were the engines that made the most noise.

    Consider also that my mother, a professor who studied sound, in 2005 said she did not like the idea of buying a diesel because of the reputation for noise. She was bracing for what she had been told would be the stereotypical “clatter”. However, when she sat down in the actual car for a test drive she said with delight “It purrs like a cat!” Seven years later she bought a second diesel and she says it is practically silent. This is no coincidence. Diesel engines run at lower revolutions to achieve power and therefore are quieter.

  3. They’re anemic: Torque is an amazing thing for driving. Horsepower is what most people are used to in America. The horsepower feels great when you want to get going because you can rev an engine through a long curve. Step on the pedal and you might not take off right away but you can accelerate through 4000 rpm. It turns out torque is really what matters most. Driving up a hill at 65 mph and want to avoid shifting down? You need torque. Driving a car full of family and groceries yet trying to pass another car and want to avoid shifting down? You need torque. Torque is not only great for pulling weight, it also is great for getting started at slow or low speeds such as driving in slippery conditions.

    Diesels have a lot of torque but they also tend to have a short curve of power. Starting from a stop they can kick but then feel hesitant/gutless compared to a gasoline engine. This is typically resolved by the addition of a turbo to push through the upper end of a curve. Some even have twin turbos and/or technology to eliminate the lag when engaging a turbo. If you have ever been pushing a diesel pedal when the turbo fails you will be faced with the undeniable realization that it is a completely different beast than gasoline; some extra technology is needed to give it the exhiliration of horsepower.

    Another way of looking at this is the average mileage of diesel is impacted by stop-and-go. 40 mpg is easy on the highway because there’s almost no need to touch the pedal (due to power at the low end of the curve) but if you stop for a lot of red lights you have no choice but to waste fuel as you run into high RPMs. Another point on torque, My VW Passat wagon is a 4 cylinder engine. The power it produces at low RPM is comparable to a 6 cylinder gasoline engine. That’s why diesel cars can be made with smaller, lighter engines yet have reasonable power.

  4. There’s no room for improvement: The improvement over just a few years has been amazing. More efficient injectors, cleaner emissions, quieter, smoother…the list goes on and on. Innovation has allowed the latest VW diesels to achieve 90 mpg in track tests and 84 mpg in real-world use. Honda says its new Civic diesel engine runs 79 mpg with 221 ft-lb torque and is the lightest in its class. Subaru calls its 2005 boxer diesel engine a “True Engineering Revolution

    When Subaru started its development project for the BOXER DIESEL, we soon realized that we were in an unprecedented, unchartered area in diesel engine development and were undertaking a technological challenge for which no benchmarking comparisons existed.

    You also could simply follow Catepillar’s diesel innovation marketing from 2001 (clean bus fleets) to 2005 (low emission trucks) to 2012 (near zero emissions). Outside the consumer automobile, diesel is marketed with many amazing innovations. I’ve been eyeing the Volvo diesel hybrid (already sold-out for 2013) because it gets 126 or better mpg yet has the torque and all wheel drive of a truck combined with the performance of a Ferrari 308.

Perhaps you can see why I am so eager to stay with diesel when I move to a hybrid vehicle. Given that we’re only just starting to see the potential innovation in both diesel and electric technology we could be on the verge of a vehicle revolution. Imagine combining the performance of a sports car, power of a utility truck and the efficiency of a daily driver into a single vehicle. That is what we see already in the first diesel electric hybrids.

Obviously an electric engine eliminates the stop/go mileage issue completely. Diesel only would be needed at speed and long distances, where it is getting more efficient every year. In other words:

Captain Obvious

It might sound obvious but I have to stop now and reflect on a strangely opposite view from a site called Green Car Reports. John Voelcker wrote an opinion piece called “Diesel Hybrids: Why They Don’t Make As Much Sense As You Think“. His arguments against using diesel hybrids are the following:

  1. “First and foremost is the issue of cost. On average, a diesel engine costs about 15 percent more to manufacture than a gasoline engine of equal output.”
  2. “…a diesel hybrid should have boatloads of torque off the line, but may require extensive gearing to ensure highly efficient running at speed.”
  3. “Gasoline engines convert 25 to 30 percent of a fuel’s energy content into forward motion at the wheels; the rest is wasted as heat and noise. By contrast, a diesel converts 30 to 35 percent of the fuel’s energy into forward motion–hence the higher fuel efficiency figures. But that leaves less “headroom” for improvement.”

Ugh. No, really. Ugh. I want to put John in a diesel just for a day so he can feel how utterly wrong he is on point number two.

A horsepower curve continues well beyond the diesel curve as explained by The Institute of Motor Industry. The diesel has to shift or hit a turbo to get through the full acceleration path while a gasoline engine just revs higher and higher. What this really means is that he is flat wrong; diesel is a better match for hybrid because electric can carry the start to speed and then leave diesel to maintain speed with efficiency (as it does already). This is a PERFECT application of the electric engine that has NO CURVE. Let it take over starts/stops and you have a beautiful marriage of technology. John would instinctively know this if he drove a diesel.

Now back to point number one and the matter of cost.

I call bullshit. Cost is 15% more for an engine of equal output? Let’s see the numbers on that unbelievable statement. Are we measuring patent application fees or what? Rather than get tied down in an inventory of parts and labor, however, let’s get straight to the point. Nobody thinks the Ford Raptor is an inexpensive vehicle. A stock sports truck ready to chew up Baja desert at 60 mph starts at $45K; and probably not one single Raptor sold will ever actually be used for what it was designed. So cost can be higher and people gladly pay more for it because of percieved and realized value, period.

It doesn't cost less to build a Raptor
It doesn’t cost less to build a Raptor

Even if I go along with the unbelievable point that the diesel engine costs 15% more for “equal output”, in terms of value it kills a gasoline engine with a longer life and higher efficiency. Go tell a family of four that they will have to visit the pump half as often and they will be glad to pay a premium. Just the other day a couple with a newborn child pulled up and told me they switched from a Tahoe to a Jetta TDI when they realized they would go from refueling every week to once a month. What is the value of all that time gained to parents of a newborn? John’s 15% cost worry simply evaporates in the face of some common sense. It seems to me the new diesel engines are in fact lighter, smaller and less-expensive to build and maintain over time than gasoline engines.

Now on to his third point.

He says there’s no “headroom” for improvement. This is completely backwards logic.

If you give me the option of a diesel-hybrid high-performance full-sized sports-wagon that gets 120+ mpg (Volvo V60) or a gasoline-hybrid lightweight micro hatchback that gets 50 mpg (Prius) I’ll tell you where there is no headroom. Gasoline has hit its development ceiling. And what was point of stating “equal output” right before stating diesel has “higher fuel efficiency figures”? Which is it?

Face it, John, even a Jaguar diesel luxury car driven across America was averaging 60+ mpg and ALL of us know that number would go up significantly if they made it hybrid. That is TRULY exciting — the opposite of no headroom, that Jaguar could potentially double its mpg. A luxury Jag at 120mpg! Squeezing two or three more mpg out of the miserable Prius is NOT exciting. Diesel engineering is revolutionary and opening up the future of innovation.

A British team has gone across America, from New York to Los Angeles, in a Jaguar XF 2.2 liter diesel with just four fuel stops. The team averaged a fuel-economy of 62.9 mpg imperial (4.49 liters/100 km) while crossing 11 states and three time-zones on a trip that took eight days to complete.

The ceiling for gasoline is already here and the improvements are flat and unimpressive. Why would you invest in gasoline hybrid development only to end up with lower mpg than a stock diesel engine? Nonsense. Anyone who has driven a Prius at 65 mph or tried to pull a boat with it knows it never will be as fun or useful to drive as a diesel-hybrid. A Volt could be a completely different car, perhaps even a luxury full-sized car, if it had a diesel instead of gasoline engine.

Last, but not least, John gives us this closing argument.

It’s probably significant that Mercedes-Benz, which has sold diesels in the U.S. for many decades, has no plans to sell the world’s sole diesel-electric hybrid powertrain here in the States.

Consider, in terms of significance, that the Prius was the sole option and it proved popular. The VW diesel was the sole option and it proved popular. Both cars have been “sole” innovative effciency/technology entries into the American market and both have hit sales numbers out of the ballpark.

Is Benz afraid whether Americans would pony up for a car that gets 66 mpg yet goes 150 mph and 0-60 in 7.5 seconds? Are you kidding me? Do people buy luxury cars because “first and foremost is the issue of cost”? They demand value. Diesel-hybrid is value.

Unicorns may appear in America sooner
Unicorns may appear in America sooner

If Benz let me import 1,000 I could guarantee I will sell them immediately by putting up a small website with an order form. Simple as that; and simple to see why the Volvo V60, which John suspiciously does not mention, has sold out already for 2013. The Volvo is perhaps the most famous in the diesel community and its sales numbers prove diesel-hybrid is here and for real.

What John really should have said is that the rest of the world is buying high-efficiency and clean diesel Hondas, Acuras, Toyotas, Lexus-is, Subarus, Audis, Benzs…. The list goes on and on of “probably significant” options not offered to Americans.

When I drove in 2010 a manual diesel VW Golf in London it felt like I was getting 60+ mpg in a sports car. The inevitable question flashed in my mind: why can’t I get this in America?

What is really significant is that Benz and other manufacturers have horrible marketing. Someone thinks Americans are unwilling or unable to recognize diesel as the perfect choice for their profile — high performance, high mileage on open roads with big vehicles hauling stuff. But all it takes is one test-drive and every American I know has fallen in love with new diesel.

A diesel hybrid would just make an already awesome option even greater, especially in the city and stop/go traffic. It makes perfect sense.

‘Active Defense’ will Improve Cyber Security

Lately I’ve seen many articles about “active defense” and “hack back.” This is good because current defenses aren’t working and being in a constant state of defensive mode is not a lot of fun.  Something needs to be done.  The problem is many of these articles take a doomsday approach to the topic. 

Comments like, “it’s illegal, you can’t do it;” “you will disrupt someone’s life support in a hospital;” “we will end up with vigilantes hacking back;”and many more, do not facilitate a discussion but appear to seek to end the debate.  Many of the naysayers claim the only solution is law enforcement and more of it.  How many more police would be enough and is this a realistic response? 

Consider this: one person can command a million bot attack from the comfort of his living room; nation-states are training their people to use cyberspace to attack, steal, disrupt; and working for organized crime and terrorist groups pays much better than working a legitimate job in many countries.  So, what will it take to raise the stakes and make hacking a more risky business?

Active defense will actually improve security for those who consider it.  However, regardless of how the debate proceeds and no matter what the perceived outcome, companies are not likely to suddenly flip a switch and begin hacking back.  There are still too many variables and unknowns involved, e.g. risks, liability and legal issues.  There will continue to be much caution and debate, primarily since the law on this topic is so unsettled and at this point it is difficult to tell from one jurisdiction to the next how this activity will be perceived.

A company with any sense of corporate responsibility will attack this problem with a very cautious approach.  For instance, if your company is persistently attacked the first question is why and how.  Is the company being targeted for a particular reason or is your security so crappy that every hacker and his brother are using you as their playground? 

If your security is good, which is relative because no matter whom you are, your security can always be improved, you will likely take an escalated approach to the problem and not jump right in to hacking back.  During this escalated approach you should be collecting the necessary intelligence to evaluate the problem. 

To use an analogy, let’s say you are in a combat zone and encounter a sniper.  In most circumstances you will not call in an airstrike on the sniper.  There are many factors to consider, like where is he, what type of collateral damage may occur, what is the least amount of effort and resources necessary to take him out, etc.?  So, when facing a cyber-attack the same considerations apply:

  • Where is the hacker coming from;
  • What is his motive and end-state;
  • Based on the Intel you have collected, what tools and techniques can you use;
  • What collateral damage may occur; and,
  • Since time and resources are money, what is the least time and resource intensive course of action you can take to resolve this issue?

Companies have too much to lose to take this lightly and jump forward without a very careful analysis.  It is this analysis that will inevitably lead to much better security and more focus on the problem.

Other questions for a company to ask are, is the attack persistent or a one-time hit and how much Intel can be collected regarding the attack: can a motive be determined, what is the source and means of the attack, potential location and/or identity of the attacker, how many hops in-between your network and the attacker, what type of servers and who owns those servers; then, what is your end-state (block attack, find hacker, prevent further disruption, retrieve intellectual property/trade secrets, etc.), and finally, what are the risks, liability, and legal issues involved? 

Any company that would attempt to hack back without ensuring that their security is good or better than average is just asking for trouble.  A lot of avenues of approach beyond the standard defenses currently employed exist for companies persistently attacked.  The fear mongering spewed in many articles over active defense and hack back will simply drive companies, which are persistently attacked and frustrated with the state of security, to go underground with their response, act in a haphazard manner, and hope they don’t get caught.

2012 CONSEGI Presentation: CyberFall

I presented “CyberFall: Active Defense 2012” (PDF, Article) at the Fifth Congress International Free Software and Electronic Government – Consegi 2012.

IT is a matter of when, not if, your systems will be breached by attack. Many security experts argue against an active defense plan for fear of legal ramifications, harm to innocent bystanders or risk of failure. This presentation takes the audience through the heart of the debate; participants will learn key legal, ethical and business considerations to practice technical self-defense in cyberspace. The latest trends in threat innovation and actions are contrasted with conflict theory in order to offer the philosophical, political and economic framework of a successful active defense. As Carl von Clausewitz might say: “CyberFall is the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means”.

When: 11:30am, Friday, December 7, 2012
Where: Belém do Para, Brazil – Centro de Convenções e Feiras da Amazônia Avenida Dr. Freitas, S/N – Marco