Ben Tasker's Blog

(Hopefully) Rescuing a bottle of drink

With the change in weather, I'm having to take painkillers a lot more regularly, which means I can't drink.

I thought, as an option, I'd explore some non-alcoholic spirits - there seems to be quite a market for them, so there must be some good ones out there.

I did have some luck in finding some "gin". However, whilst searching, I stumbled upon "Xachoh Blend No. 7 Non Alcoholic Spirit", which lists the following tasting notes

Xachoh Blend No. 7 has a warm and richly spiced aroma. The prominent flavours of ginger root and blades of mace strike a perfect blend of warmth, spice and a subtle fruitiness. The luxurious aroma of cinnamon quills brings sweetness to the nose and palate, balancing perfectly with saffron & the other spices. Dark crystal malt adds delicious toasted notes and a real depth of flavour, similar to that of a well-aged dark spirit. All of these rich and dark flavours are balanced by a refreshing acidity of sumac on the palate, leaving the way for a long finish and an eagerness for that next sip.

Sounds good eh? As with anything on Amazon, reviews were incredibly mixed, some love it, some hate it.

So, as it sounded good, I took a risk and ordered a bottle.

It arrived this morning:

 

So having been looking forward to it's arrival, I had a little taste. 

It's got a nice and very varied aroma to it. But things go downhill once you get it to your mouth - if it was just a little less watery, I'd probably be looking to add Ribena to it. 

Disappointing doesn't cover it, the only trace of flavour it has is a somewhat unpleasant aftertaste. Unfortunately, if you mix it with ginger ale, it transpires that all you get is ginger ale with a horrendous aftertaste.

The answer for why lies on the back label (and in fairness *is* listed on the Amazon listing)

Free from:

  • Alcohol
  • Extracts
  • Gluten
  • Sugar
  • Calories
  • Sweeteners

With the exception of a tiny bit of salt, the nutritional information is just 0's. This stuff is literally water with some Barley Malt and a few flavourings.

It's "natural", it Gluten Free, it's vegan, it's... it's fucking shit and it's destined for the drain. Yuck

But, rather than pour a £30 bottle of water down the drain, I thought I'd have a go at improving it first - worst comes to worst I'm just pouring a slightly more expensive bottle of water down the drain, and it's not like I could realistically make it much worse.

As I'm extremely unlikely to try making this again, and there's not a lot of room there for snark, I figured this was better placed here than on my recipes site.

Read more ...

Spamhaus still parties like it's 1999

I recently had visibility of a Spamhaus Block List (SBL) listing notification on the basis of malware being detected within a file delivered via HTTP/HTTPS.

As part of the report, they provide the affected URL (for the sake of this post we'll say it's https://foo.example.com/app.exe) along with details of the investigation they've done.

Ultimately that investigation is done in order to boil back to a set of IPs to add to their list.

Concerningly, this is, literally just 

dig +short foo.example.com

Which gives them output of the form

CNAME1
CNAME2
1.2.3.4
4.5.6.7

They then run a reverse lookup (using nslookup) on those IP addresses in order to identify the ISP. The IPs are added to the SBL, and a notification sent to the associated ISP.

In this case, the URL was a legitimate file, though it had been bundled with some software falling under the Possibly Unwanted Application (PUA) category. The point of this post, though, is not to argue about whether it should have been considered worthy of addition.

The issue is that Spamhaus' investigation techniques seem to be stuck in the last century, causing potentially massive collateral damage whilst failing to actually protect against the very file that triggered the listing in the first place.

In case you're wondering why Spamhaus are looking for malware delivery over HTTP/HTTPS, it's because the SBL has URI blocking functionality - when a spam filter (like SpamAssasin) detects a URL in a mail, it can check whether the hosting domain resolves back to an IP in the SBL, and mark as spam if it does (in effect limiting the ability to spread malware via links in email - undoubtedly a nice idea).

 

Just to note, although they make it difficult to identify how to contact them about this kind of thing, I have attempted to contact Spamhaus about this (also tried via Twitter too).

It also seems only fair (to Spamhaus) to note that I also saw a Netcraft incident related to the same file, and they don't even provide the investigative steps they followed. So not only might Netcraft be falling for the same traps, but there's a lack of transparency preventing issue from being found and highlighted.

Read more ...

Brexit: My Predictions

For the most part, I've managed to keep Brexit related posts off this site (if you follow me on Twitter, apologies - you'll know I've resolutely failed to stay out of the fold there). I have previously made my position fairly clear though.

As we approach end of days though, I thought it'd be interesting to get my thoughts and predictions down so that I can potentially look back and see how well they aged.

Although this post is quite long, my predictions are broken down into bulletpoints at the end.

Read more ...

Twitter Screws Up With Data It Shouldn't Hold

I recently had a (NSFW) grumble about Twitter. Part of that grumble was about the fact that Twitter insist you provide a mobile phone number in order to re-instate your account after a suspension.

As part of my appeal against the suspension I noted that that's arguably not GDPR compliant - a phone number is (undoubtedly) PII, and is not required in order to provide the service. For Twitter to hold that number requires consent, and it's unlawful for them to withhold the service if consent is not given for non-essential data processing.

Part of the reason for my objection was because Social Media companies (in the form of Facebook) have already proven they cannot be trusted with things like mobile phone numbers.

Presumably Twitter weren't happy with the fact that I needed to use Facebook as an example, as they've now gone ahead and had a data processing screw up of their own.

Read more ...

Screenshot Social Media, Don't embed

Ever since the web was born, there have been concerns about preserving what's published on there for future generations. That's why things like the Wayback machine exist. Things like our approach, and concerns, around online privacy have also evolved with time.

But, the way we communicate on the web has changed pretty dramatically. Personal blogs are still a thing, but humanity has increasingly leaned towards communicating via social media - Twitter, Facebook etc. 

Now, we increasingly see news reports with embedded posts containing expert commentary about the topic of the news, and even reports about something someone has posted.

Those expert commentators are even occasionally being asked to change the way they tweet to make it easier for news sites to embed those tweets into their own stories (that request turned out to be from Sky News btw).

For all their many, many faults, the social media networks are a big part of how we communicate now, and posts on them are embedded all over the place.

This brings with it a number of avoidable, but major issues.

The aim of this post is to discuss those, and explain why you should instead be posting a screenshot of the tweet/post.

I'm going to refer to "Twitter" and "Tweets" a lot, purely because it's shorter than "Facebook" or "Social Media", but the concerns here apply across the board.

Read more ...