I'm just reading this:

http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/vpns/1459.php

I few "interesting" things about this document. (E.g., there's a section 
called "what the heck is IPSec?" That's very whitty, but I'm not sure 
how seriously you should trust such a document...)

The basic premise seems to be that all VPN systems currently in 
existence actually suck, except OpenVPN which is completely perfect. A 
suspicious conclusion, obviously.

The document claims this is because "IPSec is too complicated to be 
secure", and that "TSL is mature and battle-tested". It also asserts 
that running software in user-space is inherantly better from a security 
perspective. (While it *is* better, it's hardly the end of the story...)

The document seems to indicate that installing IPSec VPN software on 
Windows is excrusiatingly difficult due to the built-in IPSec 
functionallity Windows already has. (...is does??) For example,

"On Windows, OpenVPN installs just like any other program. It comes 
bundled up as an executable and all you need to do it double click on 
the installer. Total installation of the Windows client takes about 10
minutes including configuration. For anyone who has tried to configure 
the builtin Windows IPSec client that should be impressive. For people 
who have tried to install and configure third party IPSec clients, that 
number should be shocking!"

Um... am I missing something? Installing Cisco's IPSec VPN involves... 
double-clicking the installer. And that's it. What's so hard about that?

Also amusing is the statement "Blowfish is a very strong algorithm with 
no known weaknesses. Its 128-bit key provides us with a large enough key 
space to make brute force key attacks impossible in polynomial time." 
Erm... like... WTF?

Still, I did learn one useful thing: Apparently the "route" command 
exists on Windoze.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Weeeee....

http://eprint.iacr.org/2008/166.pdf

There's nothing like cryptanalysis to make you paranoid! ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Ooo, shiny...

http://orion.math.iastate.edu/dept/thesisarchive/MS/EKleimanMSSS05.pdf

Anybody know what a "null space" is?

(Better yet - anybody know of a job where knowing this kind of thing is 
actually an advantage?)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> The document claims this is because "IPSec is too complicated to be 
> secure", and that "TSL is mature and battle-tested".

I like how they make this assertion, then later on say "you might need 
the load balancing that IPsec does, but you can get that with OpenVPN by 
running this other complicated program on a spare machine." It sounds 
like a lot of the complication is stuff that OpenVPN basically leaves out.

Plus, I'm not really sure how they're running TLS over UDP, given that 
TLS is stream-oriented and assumes reliable delivery. It's also not real 
obvious from their descriptions that it's possible to run a UDP protocol 
over OpenVPN.

> Um... am I missing something? Installing Cisco's IPSec VPN involves... 
> double-clicking the installer. And that's it. What's so hard about that?

Ditto.

> Also amusing is the statement "Blowfish is a very strong algorithm with 
> no known weaknesses. Its 128-bit key provides us with a large enough key 
> space to make brute force key attacks impossible in polynomial time." 
> Erm... like... WTF?

Of course, it hasn't been tested as furiously as AES, either.

> Still, I did learn one useful thing: Apparently the "route" command 
> exists on Windoze.

Yup.
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/552ed70a-208d-48c4-8da8-2e27b530eac71033.mspx?mfr=true
Might be worth reading thru the list so you know what's available.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

>> The document claims this is because "IPSec is too complicated to be 
>> secure", and that "TSL is mature and battle-tested".
> 
> I like how they make this assertion, then later on say "you might need 
> the load balancing that IPsec does, but you can get that with OpenVPN by 
> running this other complicated program on a spare machine." It sounds 
> like a lot of the complication is stuff that OpenVPN basically leaves out.

Well, is that a protocol feature or a software feature?

> Plus, I'm not really sure how they're running TLS over UDP, given that 
> TLS is stream-oriented and assumes reliable delivery. It's also not real 
> obvious from their descriptions that it's possible to run a UDP protocol 
> over OpenVPN.

Hmm, that's a good point.

>> Also amusing is the statement "Blowfish is a very strong algorithm 
>> with no known weaknesses. Its 128-bit key provides us with a large 
>> enough key space to make brute force key attacks impossible in 
>> polynomial time." Erm... like... WTF?
> 
> Of course, it hasn't been tested as furiously as AES, either.

I was more amused by the statement that key size has any relationship to 
complexity class.

Blowfish is far more popular than, say, TEA or SQUARE or any number of 
other ciphers from the zoo of less-known algorithms out there. I note 
however that Blowfish has been "replaced" by Twofish which is meant to 
be stronger. (And AES finalist, I believe.)

A lot of people are apparently jumpy about the whole XSL attack thing on 
AES.


-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> The document claims this is because "IPSec is too complicated to be 
>>> secure", and that "TSL is mature and battle-tested".
>>
>> I like how they make this assertion, then later on say "you might need 
>> the load balancing that IPsec does, but you can get that with OpenVPN 
>> by running this other complicated program on a spare machine." It 
>> sounds like a lot of the complication is stuff that OpenVPN basically 
>> leaves out.
> 
> Well, is that a protocol feature or a software feature?

I'm saying that they mock IPsec for solving problems *they* don't have, 
because it was "designed by a committee".  I suspect the people on the 
"committee" actually *did* have those problems, so incorporated 
solutions to them into the standard, instead of making everyone solve it 
themselves with ad hoc solutions consisting of interacting layers which 
could easily introduce a security hole if you don't know what you're doing.

> I was more amused by the statement that key size has any relationship to 
> complexity class.

Yes, I understood the WTF. :-) Of course, if it's running over TLS, you 
can put whatever cipher both sides agree on in there.

And actually, key size *can* have a relationship to complexity class, 
perhaps. If you can pre-compute something that lets you look up in 
polynomial time the key that someone is using, except that the key is 
too long to store the precomputed somethings for every key, I can see 
where that can happen. (Technically, the same complexity class, but in 
practice, you can break something in polynomial time if you discount the 
precomputation, perhaps.)

But yeah, the whole discussion was full of WTFs like that. Plus, they 
say basically "IPSec is too complicated to deploy, OpenVPN does the same 
thing only its easy to deploy", without giving any evidence at all of 
either. Most of the paper is a description of SSL, and I'm pretty sure 
there aren't fundamental security problems with IPSec that aren't in SSL.

(And apparently the authors don't know that actual difference between 
SSL and TLS.  Hint: OpenVPN seems to use SSL.)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> But yeah, the whole discussion was full of WTFs like that. Plus, they 
> say basically "IPSec is too complicated to deploy, OpenVPN does the same 
> thing only its easy to deploy", without giving any evidence at all of 
> either. Most of the paper is a description of SSL, and I'm pretty sure 
> there aren't fundamental security problems with IPSec that aren't in SSL.
> 
> (And apparently the authors don't know that actual difference between 
> SSL and TLS.  Hint: OpenVPN seems to use SSL.)

Hmm. I just wanted to know whether this piece of software was worth using.

I think I have my answer now...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Hmm. I just wanted to know whether this piece of software was worth using.
> I think I have my answer now...

Oh. I imagine if it solves the problem you have, it's probably worth 
using, assuming you can get it working and it's sufficiently widespread 
you trust it.

That the people writing the *paper* didn't write it in a convincing way 
doesn't really say much about the *code*.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Weeeee....
> 
> http://eprint.iacr.org/2008/166.pdf
> 
> There's nothing like cryptanalysis to make you paranoid! ;-)
> 
It lead to a discussion in parliament here and a bad time for one of our 
ministers. Introduction of the country-wide OV chipcard (OV is the 
abbreviation for public transport) is postponed now.

At the last election in some cities voting was done again by paper and 
red pencil because somebody showed that you could listen to what people 
voted by putting a radio receiver close to it and a few more 
insecurities of the digital voting machines.

What these examples have in common is that they were badly designed and 
they relied on people not knowing the details as an important security 
measure. The latter is of course an absolute sin in cryptography, but 
apparently not (yet) when designing voting equipment or identification 
cards.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:

> What these examples have in common is that they were badly designed and 
> they relied on people not knowing the details as an important security 
> measure. The latter is of course an absolute sin in cryptography, but 
> apparently not (yet) when designing voting equipment or identification 
> cards.

Security through obscurity = hmm, it doesn't work. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> That the people writing the *paper* didn't write it in a convincing way 
> doesn't really say much about the *code*.

True. But given that it seems to be a one man project... Well I'm sure 
it *works*, but that's not the same as being secure. [Not that any sane 
person is going to bother trying to hack my systems unless it's 
sufficiently easy.]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> True. But given that it seems to be a one man project... 

I see. I hadn't followed it up.  No, if the author of the code is the 
author of the paper, I'd definitely go with IPSEC. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

>> True. But given that it seems to be a one man project... 
> 
> I see. I hadn't followed it up.  No, if the author of the code is the 
> author of the paper, I'd definitely go with IPSEC. :-)

It appears the report was written by somebody other than the author. But 
then, comments like "OpenVPN seems to be using SSL" make me suspicious. 
As does the fact that SSL and TLS both run over TCP, yet OpenVPN seems 
to be using UPD. That looks like a big enough deviation from the 
standard that I'm left wondering how many design decisions have been 
made with potential security implications.

It's not like OpenVPN just calls the OpenSSH crypto library to do its 
bidding; it looks like a complete new implementation.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 09:08:07 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> It appears the report was written by somebody other than the author.

That sentence made me laugh.  Of course, it's 3 AM here (almost 3:30), so 
I'm a little sleepy, but can I just say THANK YOU?  I *really* needed a 
laugh.

Tough night, and this really helped.

Thank you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> That sentence made me laugh.  Of course, it's 3 AM here (almost 3:30), so 
> I'm a little sleepy, but can I just say THANK YOU?  I *really* needed a 
> laugh.
> 
> Tough night, and this really helped.
> 
> Thank you.

No problem. There's no charge for this service. Please contact Phil Cook 
in my absence. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:24:57 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> That sentence made me laugh.  Of course, it's 3 AM here (almost 3:30),
>> so I'm a little sleepy, but can I just say THANK YOU?  I *really*
>> needed a laugh.
>> 
>> Tough night, and this really helped.
>> 
>> Thank you.
> 
> No problem. There's no charge for this service. Please contact Phil Cook
> in my absence. ;-)

And another laugh.  I might actually get some sleep yet tonight. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> No problem. There's no charge for this service. Please contact Phil Cook
>> in my absence. ;-)
> 
> And another laugh.  I might actually get some sleep yet tonight. :-)

Yeah - dude, what the hell?? WHY ARE YOU AWAKE?! x_x

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:27:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> No problem. There's no charge for this service. Please contact Phil
>>> Cook in my absence. ;-)
>> 
>> And another laugh.  I might actually get some sleep yet tonight. :-)
> 
> Yeah - dude, what the hell?? WHY ARE YOU AWAKE?! x_x

Right now because I'm talking to you.  5 AM now.

Today's the 4th of July here, so I don't have to work today.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Yeah - dude, what the hell?? WHY ARE YOU AWAKE?! x_x
> 
> Right now because I'm talking to you.  5 AM now.
> 
> Today's the 4th of July here, so I don't have to work today.

Ooo, Independence Day. This can mean only one thing...

...it's Jamie's birthday tomorrow! :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:06:46 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Yeah - dude, what the hell?? WHY ARE YOU AWAKE?! x_x
>> 
>> Right now because I'm talking to you.  5 AM now.
>> 
>> Today's the 4th of July here, so I don't have to work today.
> 
> Ooo, Independence Day. This can mean only one thing...
> 
> ...it's Jamie's birthday tomorrow! :-D

Which Jamie?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Ooo, Independence Day. This can mean only one thing...
>>
>> ...it's Jamie's birthday tomorrow! :-D
> 
> Which Jamie?

The one I ordered a birthday card from Zazzle for but which hasn't 
turned up yet... :-S

Seriously, Zazzle boasts that you can have your order within 24 hours, 
but that's only actually true if you line in North America. For the rest 
of the world... it takes rather a long time. :-( I wish they would set 
up a facility somewhere in mainland Europe...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:51:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Ooo, Independence Day. This can mean only one thing...
>>>
>>> ...it's Jamie's birthday tomorrow! :-D
>> 
>> Which Jamie?
> 
> The one I ordered a birthday card from Zazzle for but which hasn't
> turned up yet... :-S

Ah, I see.  There are so many Jamies' in the world.  But hey, it sounds 
like you've got at least *one* friend.  Actually, though, I know you have 
more than that. ;-)

> Seriously, Zazzle boasts that you can have your order within 24 hours,
> but that's only actually true if you line in North America. For the rest
> of the world... it takes rather a long time. :-( I wish they would set
> up a facility somewhere in mainland Europe...

Seems a lot of companies operate that way.  We have a similar experience 
when ordering DVDs from amazon.co.uk as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:29:33 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:51:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>>>> Ooo, Independence Day. This can mean only one thing...
>>>>
>>>> ...it's Jamie's birthday tomorrow! :-D
>>> 
>>> Which Jamie?
>> 
>> The one I ordered a birthday card from Zazzle for but which hasn't
>> turned up yet... :-S
> 
> Ah, I see.  There are so many Jamies' in the world.  But hey, it sounds
> like you've got at least *one* friend.  Actually, though, I know you
> have more than that. ;-)
> 
>> Seriously, Zazzle boasts that you can have your order within 24 hours,
>> but that's only actually true if you line in North America. For the
>> rest of the world... it takes rather a long time. :-( I wish they would
>> set up a facility somewhere in mainland Europe...
> 
> Seems a lot of companies operate that way.  We have a similar experience
> when ordering DVDs from amazon.co.uk as well.

And not just DVDs (hit send too soon).  Just got a copy of the Uxbridge 
English Dictionary, and it (actually surprisingly because we ordered from 
a US site) also was sent via Royal Mail from the UK.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Ah, I see.  There are so many Jamies' in the world.

And I kinda promised that if I ever have children... well, there'll be 
*another* Jamie in the world. ;-)

> But hey, it sounds 
> like you've got at least *one* friend.  Actually, though, I know you have 
> more than that. ;-)

Meh. There are people I sometimes speak to on teh interwebs. But human 
beings that I can actually go hang out with? Now that's a tiny list. :-(

>> Seriously, Zazzle boasts that you can have your order within 24 hours,
>> but that's only actually true if you line in North America. For the rest
>> of the world... it takes rather a long time. :-( I wish they would set
>> up a facility somewhere in mainland Europe...
> 
> Seems a lot of companies operate that way.  We have a similar experience 
> when ordering DVDs from amazon.co.uk as well.

Really? I usually find Amazon to be quite good...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:01:07 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:27:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>>>> No problem. There's no charge for this service. Please contact Phil
>>>> Cook in my absence. ;-)

But I charge by the word.

>>> And another laugh.  I might actually get some sleep yet tonight. :-)
>>
>> Yeah - dude, what the hell?? WHY ARE YOU AWAKE?! x_x
>
> Right now because I'm talking to you.  5 AM now.
>
> Today's the 4th of July here, so I don't have to work today.

Too many giant spaceships hovering over the cities causing congestion?

Pfft uppity colonials, you don't see us celebrating Consitutional Monarchy  
Day.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

>>>>> No problem. There's no charge for this service. Please contact Phil
>>>>> Cook in my absence. ;-)
> 
> But I charge by the word.

He does, you know...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> As does the fact that SSL and TLS both run over TCP, yet OpenVPN seems 
> to be using UPD. That looks like a big enough deviation from the 
> standard that I'm left wondering how many design decisions have been 
> made with potential security implications.

Yes, exactly. That, and all the other things you might want to do (like 
be behind a NAT) that OpenVPN doesn't handle.

Note that SSL and TLS are both technologically the same thing. The 
difference is in provisioning. That is, it's SSL if you start the 
protocol dance as soon as you open the port (because you're talking on 
port 443 instead of port 80, for example). It's TLS if you open the 
connection, do some negotiation, *then* start encrypting, such as with 
BEEP or Secure SMTP or anything else that has a "STARTTLS" command.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

>> As does the fact that SSL and TLS both run over TCP, yet OpenVPN seems 
>> to be using UPD. That looks like a big enough deviation from the 
>> standard that I'm left wondering how many design decisions have been 
>> made with potential security implications.
> 
> Yes, exactly. That, and all the other things you might want to do (like 
> be behind a NAT) that OpenVPN doesn't handle.

I thought I saw somewhere that OpenVPN *does* work with NAT, but IPSec 
doesn't. (Because NAT involves packet modification, which IPSec is 
obviously designed to prevent.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I thought I saw somewhere that OpenVPN *does* work with NAT, but IPSec 
> doesn't. (Because NAT involves packet modification, which IPSec is 
> obviously designed to prevent.)

No, what they said was that if you want IPSec to work with NAT, you had 
to exclude the IP addresses from the hash calculation with a 
configuration. Since OpenVPN never even offers the opportunity to 
include the IP addresses, it's "simpler" and therefore more secure.

Huh?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:17:37 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>Pfft uppity colonials, you don't see us celebrating Consitutional Monarchy  
>Day.

A bit late but I always celebrate "Good Riddance Day" ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:40:54 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> I thought I saw somewhere that OpenVPN *does* work with NAT, but IPSec
> doesn't. (Because NAT involves packet modification, which IPSec is
> obviously designed to prevent.)

IPSec can work over NATted connections, you just need a router that will 
handle it.  The last couple Linksys routers I've had (and the Belkin I 
currently own, IIRC) have supported IPSec over NAT.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:33:49 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Ah, I see.  There are so many Jamies' in the world.
> 
> And I kinda promised that if I ever have children... well, there'll be
> *another* Jamie in the world. ;-)

:-)

>> But hey, it sounds
>> like you've got at least *one* friend.  Actually, though, I know you
>> have more than that. ;-)
> 
> Meh. There are people I sometimes speak to on teh interwebs. But human
> beings that I can actually go hang out with? Now that's a tiny list. :-(

Hey, the same goes here.  Offhand, I can think of about 2 people outside 
of work that I will just hang out with - and they're my immediate 
family.  I'll occasionally have lunch with one of my instructors or 
coworkers at lunch.  Very occasionally, I'll get together with the 
neighbors across the alley from us, or the ones next door to us.

>>> Seriously, Zazzle boasts that you can have your order within 24 hours,
>>> but that's only actually true if you line in North America. For the
>>> rest of the world... it takes rather a long time. :-( I wish they
>>> would set up a facility somewhere in mainland Europe...
>> 
>> Seems a lot of companies operate that way.  We have a similar
>> experience when ordering DVDs from amazon.co.uk as well.
> 
> Really? I usually find Amazon to be quite good...

You're not in the US ordering from a.co.uk, though.  When I order from 
Amazon US, delivery time is just fine - but from the UK, it takes a while 
longer.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:17:37 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:01:07 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:27:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>>>> No problem. There's no charge for this service. Please contact Phil
>>>>> Cook in my absence. ;-)
> 
> But I charge by the word.
> 
>>>> And another laugh.  I might actually get some sleep yet tonight. :-)
>>>
>>> Yeah - dude, what the hell?? WHY ARE YOU AWAKE?! x_x
>>
>> Right now because I'm talking to you.  5 AM now.
>>
>> Today's the 4th of July here, so I don't have to work today.
> 
> Too many giant spaceships hovering over the cities causing congestion?

Yeah, something like that.

> Pfft uppity colonials, you don't see us celebrating Consitutional
> Monarchy Day.

Heh, well, I know a number of Brits who celebrate having rid themselves 
of us, so that's fair. ;-)  As for us, we celebrated by calming cats 
during the fireworks - but the fireworks themselves have been very muted 
this year out here.

Oh, and I cooked us some *excellent* steaks.  I managed - for the first 
time - to cook medium-rare steaks instead of cooking them until they were 
charcoal.  You'd be able to see more about it in my LJ.

It's kinda ironic - I'm perfectly happy having some reheated pizza or 
canned soup, but I somehow do seem to pull together some pretty good home 
cooked food every once in a while - and I enjoy it, which just really 
surprises me.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:34:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:17:37 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Pfft uppity colonials, you don't see us celebrating Consitutional
>>Monarchy Day.
> 
> A bit late but I always celebrate "Good Riddance Day" ;)

See, Phil?  This is what I was just saying. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> You're not in the US ordering from a.co.uk, though.  When I order from 
> Amazon US, delivery time is just fine - but from the UK, it takes a while 
> longer.

Heh. My boss gave me some gift vouchers from Amazon.com for Christmas. 
So I guess I won't be using them then. :-/

(Just another example of the self-evident fact that Americans typically 
don't comprehend that there are parts of the world that aren't America.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:34:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> You're not in the US ordering from a.co.uk, though.  When I order from
>> Amazon US, delivery time is just fine - but from the UK, it takes a
>> while longer.
> 
> Heh. My boss gave me some gift vouchers from Amazon.com for Christmas.
> So I guess I won't be using them then. :-/

You can send them to me. ;-)  (Seriously, you can place the order, it 
might just take a little longer to get there)

> (Just another example of the self-evident fact that Americans typically
> don't comprehend that there are parts of the world that aren't America.)

Be careful about generalizations.  There are quite a few of us who do 
understand that we're not the entire world.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06-Jul-08 20:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 09:34:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>> You're not in the US ordering from a.co.uk, though.  When I order from
>>> Amazon US, delivery time is just fine - but from the UK, it takes a
>>> while longer.
>> Heh. My boss gave me some gift vouchers from Amazon.com for Christmas.
>> So I guess I won't be using them then. :-/
> 
> You can send them to me. ;-)  (Seriously, you can place the order, it 
> might just take a little longer to get there)
> 
I have used both the UK and the USA ones and it does work. Presumably if 
you order something from .com you get a box with .uk on it anyway. At 
least when I order something at .uk I always get packages from .de even 
when the item is not listed at .de
>> (Just another example of the self-evident fact that Americans typically
>> don't comprehend that there are parts of the world that aren't America.)
> 
> Be careful about generalizations.  There are quite a few of us who do 
> understand that we're not the entire world.
> 
I would say everyone that is regular in this NG to begin with.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> You can send them to me. ;-)  (Seriously, you can place the order, it 
> might just take a little longer to get there)

More to the point: apparently I have to sign up for a new, seperate 
account. (I can't just reuse my UK one.) FTW?

>> (Just another example of the self-evident fact that Americans typically
>> don't comprehend that there are parts of the world that aren't America.)
> 
> Be careful about generalizations.  There are quite a few of us who do 
> understand that we're not the entire world.

I did say "typically". I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who know 
more geography them me. (Wouldn't be hard, would it?) But unless it's 
just the policy of my particular company to only hire stupid people, 
most of them seem to interlectually comprehend the fact that the UK 
isn't the USA, but on a practical level forget this fact at every 
possible juncture.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:23:16 +0100, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:17:37 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:01:07 +0100, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
> Oh, and I cooked us some *excellent* steaks.  I managed - for the first
> time - to cook medium-rare steaks instead of cooking them until they were
> charcoal.  You'd be able to see more about it in my LJ.

Oh they're no good unless they charcoal briquettes on the outside and raw  
on the inside :-)

> It's kinda ironic - I'm perfectly happy having some reheated pizza or
> canned soup,

The food group of the gods.

> but I somehow do seem to pull together some pretty good home
> cooked food every once in a while - and I enjoy it, which just really
> surprises me.

Well I've just got an oven back so I'll be able to return to home-cooked  
meals; found that I had to go buy a new wok though.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:13:06 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>
>Well I've just got an oven back so I'll be able to return to home-cooked  
>meals; found that I had to go buy a new wok though.

Strange, using a wok in an oven :)

I must admit that home cooked food is just about all I eat. Except for breakfast
and when I have to eat out.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:04:20 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:13:06 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>> Well I've just got an oven back so I'll be able to return to home-cooked
>> meals; found that I had to go buy a new wok though.
>
> Strange, using a wok in an oven :)

Does great roast potatoes. Heh no a shiny new hob to match the oven.

> I must admit that home cooked food is just about all I eat. Except for  
> breakfast and when I have to eat out.

Ditto. I'll nuke the odd meal if I know I'm going to be running around or  
get a pizza or something in if I'm just feeling lazy (way too many  
takeaways around here), but the majority of my meals are home-cooked.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:31:01 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>> Strange, using a wok in an oven :)
>
>Does great roast potatoes. Heh no a shiny new hob to match the oven.
>
I take it that you have a metal handle, lucky you.

>> I must admit that home cooked food is just about all I eat. Except for  
>> breakfast and when I have to eat out.
>
>Ditto. I'll nuke the odd meal if I know I'm going to be running around or  
>get a pizza or something in if I'm just feeling lazy (way too many  
>takeaways around here), but the majority of my meals are home-cooked.
>

You should see where I live, two Caribbean take-a-ways, three Chinese, six
Iranian/Iraqi/Persian, one African restaurant and a really good fish and chip
shop. All within ten minutes walk. But to counter that we have lots of
Caribbean, Iranian and Chinese food shops as well. Oh! I forgot about the Indian
restaurants and the English butcher.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:46:12 +0100, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom>  
did spake, saying:

> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:31:01 +0100, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>>> Strange, using a wok in an oven :)
>>
>> Does great roast potatoes. Heh no a shiny new hob to match the oven.
>>
> I take it that you have a metal handle, lucky you.

Yep, best way to gauge the heat of the pan.

>>> I must admit that home cooked food is just about all I eat. Except for
>>> breakfast and when I have to eat out.
>>
>> Ditto. I'll nuke the odd meal if I know I'm going to be running around  
>> or get a pizza or something in if I'm just feeling lazy (way too many
>> takeaways around here), but the majority of my meals are home-cooked.
>
> You should see where I live, two Caribbean take-a-ways, three Chinese,  
> six Iranian/Iraqi/Persian, one African restaurant and a really good fish  
> and chip shop. All within ten minutes walk. But to counter that we have  
> lots of
> Caribbean, Iranian and Chinese food shops as well. Oh! I forgot about  
> the Indian restaurants and the English butcher.

Well we don't have the variety, but four chippies, two Indian restaurants,  
three Chinese, and two pizza/kebab houses; plus the Subway and three other  
sandwich shops and four independent butchers. Plus the caff, a tea shop  
and a cross between a restaurant and a tea room; the cake shop and the  
sweet shop. Oh I'm not counting pub food that would be another  
three/fourish depending on who you count and how far out you go. Come the  
renovations in town they're expecting coffee shops and more tea shops.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:24:50 +0100, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:

>> I take it that you have a metal handle, lucky you.
>
>Yep, best way to gauge the heat of the pan.
>
It sure is ;)

>>>> I must admit that home cooked food is just about all I eat. Except for
>>>> breakfast and when I have to eat out.
>>>
>>> Ditto. I'll nuke the odd meal if I know I'm going to be running around  
>>> or get a pizza or something in if I'm just feeling lazy (way too many
>>> takeaways around here), but the majority of my meals are home-cooked.
>>
I work away from home a lot and appreciate home cooking, even my own. I can't
understand why "homely" is not attractive in certain societies ;)

> Come the renovations in town they're expecting coffee shops.

Hmm!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:54:46 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> You can send them to me. ;-)  (Seriously, you can place the order, it
>> might just take a little longer to get there)
> 
> More to the point: apparently I have to sign up for a new, seperate
> account. (I can't just reuse my UK one.) FTW?

It amazes me how many companies don't understand the idea of identity 
management.  I work with a company on course evaluations and I have 3 or 
4 different logins for different "roles".  I should go work for them and 
show them how to manage the identities - would make it so much easier for 
their customers.

>>> (Just another example of the self-evident fact that Americans
>>> typically don't comprehend that there are parts of the world that
>>> aren't America.)
>> 
>> Be careful about generalizations.  There are quite a few of us who do
>> understand that we're not the entire world.
> 
> I did say "typically". I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who know
> more geography them me. (Wouldn't be hard, would it?) But unless it's
> just the policy of my particular company to only hire stupid people,
> most of them seem to interlectually comprehend the fact that the UK
> isn't the USA, but on a practical level forget this fact at every
> possible juncture.

Sorry, were you talking? ;-)  (Just kidding)

Well, I don't know where your company's offices are here in the US or how 
widespread they are, nor do I know how big your location is in the UK.  I 
worked once for a company that was headquartered in Austria - never 
actually did have any dealings with people in that office, but we were 
run *mostly* independently of the parent, too.  I think in the 3 years I 
worked there, my boss made 2 trips to Austria and Germany.  I never knew 
anything about their infrastructure at all, other than that they had an 
AS/400 of some sort.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:43:37 +0200, andrel wrote:


>> Be careful about generalizations.  There are quite a few of us who do
>> understand that we're not the entire world.
>> 
> I would say everyone that is regular in this NG to begin with.

Yep.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:13:06 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

> And lo on Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:23:16 +0100, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> 
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 15:17:37 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> And lo on Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:01:07 +0100, Jim Henderson
>>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>>
>> Oh, and I cooked us some *excellent* steaks.  I managed - for the first
>> time - to cook medium-rare steaks instead of cooking them until they
>> were charcoal.  You'd be able to see more about it in my LJ.
> 
> Oh they're no good unless they charcoal briquettes on the outside and
> raw on the inside :-)

LOL, not quite to my taste, but a good sear is hard to beat, I'll agree 
with that.

>> It's kinda ironic - I'm perfectly happy having some reheated pizza or
>> canned soup,
> 
> The food group of the gods.

LOL

>> but I somehow do seem to pull together some pretty good home cooked
>> food every once in a while - and I enjoy it, which just really
>> surprises me.
> 
> Well I've just got an oven back so I'll be able to return to home-cooked
> meals; found that I had to go buy a new wok though.

I was thinking some stir-fry veg would have been good with the steaks.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:24:50 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

>> I take it that you have a metal handle, lucky you.
> 
> Yep, best way to gauge the heat of the pan.

Best?  Maybe most effective, but I can think of better ways than having 
to put burn gel on your hand...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Best?  Maybe most effective, but I can think of better ways than having 
> to put burn gel on your hand...
> 
> Jim

Before you put oil in the pan, a quick touch of the surface will tell 
you if it's hot enough. Don't do it after you put oil in the pan, 
though.. that'll land you squarely in the burn ward.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:48:20 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Best?  Maybe most effective, but I can think of better ways than having
>> to put burn gel on your hand...
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> Before you put oil in the pan, a quick touch of the surface will tell
> you if it's hot enough. Don't do it after you put oil in the pan,
> though.. that'll land you squarely in the burn ward.

An IR thermometer will also tell you if it's hot enough or not - and 
won't even singe your fingers. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message