Congress readies broad new digital copyright bill

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Imhotep, Apr 26, 2006.

  1. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    "Even the current wording of the DMCA has alarmed security researchers. Ed
    Felten, the Princeton professor, told the Copyright Office last month that
    he and a colleague were the first to uncover the so-called "rootkit" on
    some Sony BMG Music Entertainment CDs--but delayed publishing their
    findings for fear of being sued under the DMCA. A report prepared by
    critics of the DMCA says it quashes free speech and chokes innovation."

    http://news.com.com/Congress readies new digital copyright
    bill/2100-1028_3-6064016.html

    Im
     
    Imhotep, Apr 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Imhotep

    box_750 Guest

    Strange messages in Usenet

    I have notice that sometimes some newsgroups will get spammed with some
    useless nonsense messages like the example I paste below:

    "She should challenge the cautious victory and weep it into its
    beach. He should mostly straighten regarding successful convincing
    careers. When Ramez's effective potential taxs, Norbert summons
    on the part of natural, historic obstacles. She wants to invoke
    select accusations up to Mustapha's reception"

    Usually it will not be only one it will be many of then in series and they
    appear in various newsgroups, they do not seem ot advertise anything or
    provide any link to any website, does anybody know what is this?
     
    box_750, Apr 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Imhotep

    box_750 Guest

    Whole OS encryption

    I am considering whole OS encryption as this seems to me the safest
    choice. I use Windows XP Home and the idea is that everytime I switch on
    the computer a password will be asked and the operating system with its
    contents decrypted on switching it off the whole OS will be encrypted
    again, and if the OS crashes it will encrypt too.

    I have found two companies that offer this service Safeboot
    http://www.safeboot.com and Securestar http://www.securestar.com but I
    have absolutly no experience with this although I have been using virtual
    encrypted disks for a long time (i.e. Truecrypt,Bestcrypt,Steganos).

    The idea of encrypting the whole OS seems very smart to me as it saves
    times and in my view it makes it harder to get into as virtually
    everything is encrypted, I wanted to know the oppinion of the experts...

    Two things I am concerned with:

    1) Algorythm used to make the encryption, I do not want to use a close
    source or untested algothym I will only feel comfortable with
    AES,Blowfish,Twofish or something like that. I think it is what
    professional cryptographers always reccomend.

    2) Perfomance of the encrypted OS under normal circumstances,
    email,internet,openoffice,pdf.

    If anybody has used Securestar or Safeboot please let me know who it went.
    Thanks.
     
    box_750, Apr 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Imhotep

    Gerard Bok Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:04:30 +0100, box_750 <> wrote:

    >I am considering whole OS encryption as this seems to me the safest
    >choice.


    >The idea of encrypting the whole OS seems very smart to me as it saves
    >times and in my view it makes it harder to get into as virtually
    >everything is encrypted, I wanted to know the oppinion of the experts...


    A far more practical approach would be to use the ATA password
    protection that is already available in modern PC's.
    (Especially notebooks).

    --
    Kind regards,
    Gerard Bok
     
    Gerard Bok, Apr 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Imhotep

    nemo_outis Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    box_750 <> wrote in news:eek:p.s8oyy7giai13em@localhost:

    >
    >
    > I am considering whole OS encryption as this seems to me the safest
    > choice. I use Windows XP Home and the idea is that everytime I switch
    > on the computer a password will be asked and the operating system
    > with its contents decrypted on switching it off the whole OS will be
    > encrypted again, and if the OS crashes it will encrypt too.
    >
    > I have found two companies that offer this service Safeboot
    > http://www.safeboot.com and Securestar http://www.securestar.com but I
    > have absolutly no experience with this although I have been using
    > virtual encrypted disks for a long time (i.e.
    > Truecrypt,Bestcrypt,Steganos).
    >
    > The idea of encrypting the whole OS seems very smart to me as it saves
    > times and in my view it makes it harder to get into as virtually
    > everything is encrypted, I wanted to know the oppinion of the
    > experts...
    >
    > Two things I am concerned with:
    >
    > 1) Algorythm used to make the encryption, I do not want to use a close
    > source or untested algothym I will only feel comfortable with
    > AES,Blowfish,Twofish or something like that. I think it is what
    > professional cryptographers always reccomend.
    >
    > 2) Perfomance of the encrypted OS under normal circumstances,
    > email,internet,openoffice,pdf.
    >
    > If anybody has used Securestar or Safeboot please let me know who it
    > went. Thanks.
    >




    First of all, let me expand your list of possible candidates:

    PGP Wholedisk (alone, as part of a suite, single-machine or enterprise)
    http://www.pgp.com/products/wholediskencryption/pgp_whole_disk_profession
    als.html

    FREE Compusec (yes, it's really free and it works fine - there's also a
    fancier $ version that supports hardware tokens)
    http://www.ce-infosys.com.sg/CeiNews_FREECompuSec.asp

    Drivecrypt plus pack (there's also an enterprise version)
    http://www.securstar.com/products_drivecryptpp.php

    Utimaco Safeguard Easy (and enterprise versions, etc.)
    http://www.utimaco.com/C12570CF0030C00A/CurrentBaseLink/W26K9K5M068OBELUS

    Winmagic's SecureDoc (and enterprise, etc.)
    http://www.winmagic.com/product_info/securedoc/prod_info.asp

    Safeboot Solo - no longer marketed! (and various Enterprise versions,
    etc.)
    http://www.safeboot.com/products/device-encryption/pc/

    Browsing these sites will inform you that these all support mainstream
    encryption algorithms (AES, etc.)

    I have a mix of legit and bootleg copies of Utimaco, Safeboot,
    Drivecrypt, Compusec, and PGP Wholedisk and all have worked
    satisfactorily (actually I haven't yet experimented with Wholedisk) with
    no noticeable slowdown of the machine (I haven't measured it but I'd
    guess less than 10%). I currently use a legit copy of Safeboot Solo
    (more from familiarity and habit rather than any strong advantages it may
    possess).

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Apr 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Imhotep

    nemo_outis Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    (Gerard Bok) wrote in news:4452032e.12201981
    @News.Individual.NET:

    >

    On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:04:30 +0100, box_750 <> wrote:
    >
    >>I am considering whole OS encryption as this seems to me the safest
    >>choice.

    >
    >>The idea of encrypting the whole OS seems very smart to me as it saves
    >>times and in my view it makes it harder to get into as virtually
    >>everything is encrypted, I wanted to know the oppinion of the experts...

    >
    > A far more practical approach would be to use the ATA password
    > protection that is already available in modern PC's.
    > (Especially notebooks).
    >




    It's not very convenient if your BIOS doesn't support it (most don't). And
    while the system may be adequately secure for some purposes it is a near
    certainty that LEOs could obtain a backdoor look at the password from the
    HD manufacturer.

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Apr 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Re: Strange messages in Usenet

    box_750 <> wrote:

    > I have notice that sometimes some newsgroups will get spammed with
    > some useless nonsense messages like the example I paste below:


    That's Hipcrime (or a troll using the tools provided by him), trying to
    flood newsgroups with garbage to make them unusable.

    Juergen Nieveler
    --
    Speed-optimizing the code?!? Don't you have a PENTIUM PRO??!!
     
    Juergen Nieveler, Apr 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Imhotep

    Moe Trin Guest

    Re: Strange messages in Usenet

    On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.computer.security, in article
    <op.s8owdzbcai13em@localhost>, box_750 wrote:

    >Usually it will not be only one it will be many of then in series and they
    >appear in various newsgroups, they do not seem ot advertise anything or
    >provide any link to any website, does anybody know what is this?


    Web Results 1 - 10 of about 80,900 for hipcrime. (0.47 seconds)

    Hipcrime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    HipCrime is both an anonymous Usenet vandal and the eponymous method he
    devised. HipCrime is given credit for creating the earliest
    web-distributed spambot ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipcrime - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

    According to the headers, you are posting with 'Opera M2/8.52 (Win32, build
    7721)' which I vaguely recall is another browser. There may be help available
    at http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm. Killfiles can be
    set to eliminate the garbage.

    Old guy
     
    Moe Trin, Apr 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Imhotep

    donnie Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:04:30 +0100, box_750 <> wrote:

    >I am considering whole OS encryption

    ############################################
    How long does it take to encrypt and/or decrypt an entire OS? Most
    users get impatient if they have to wait 90 seconds for any PC related
    activity.
     
    donnie, Apr 29, 2006
    #9
  10. Re: Whole OS encryption

    donnie wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:04:30 +0100, box_750 <> wrote:
    >
    >> I am considering whole OS encryption

    > ############################################
    > How long does it take to encrypt and/or decrypt an entire OS? Most
    > users get impatient if they have to wait 90 seconds for any PC related
    > activity.


    Hm... a stripped-down Windows XP takes about 60 MB on booting or about
    100 MB at resume from disk, which is about 2 seconds with AES on a P4
    2.4 GHz. Impact on swapping and temp files is negligable as well.

    BTW, could you please fix your quoting?
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Apr 29, 2006
    #10
  11. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    box_750 wrote:

    >
    >
    > I am considering whole OS encryption as this seems to me the safest
    > choice. I use Windows XP Home and the idea is that everytime I switch on
    > the computer a password will be asked and the operating system with its
    > contents decrypted on switching it off the whole OS will be encrypted
    > again, and if the OS crashes it will encrypt too.
    >
    > I have found two companies that offer this service Safeboot
    > http://www.safeboot.com and Securestar http://www.securestar.com but I
    > have absolutly no experience with this although I have been using virtual
    > encrypted disks for a long time (i.e. Truecrypt,Bestcrypt,Steganos).
    >
    > The idea of encrypting the whole OS seems very smart to me as it saves
    > times and in my view it makes it harder to get into as virtually
    > everything is encrypted, I wanted to know the oppinion of the experts...
    >
    > Two things I am concerned with:
    >
    > 1) Algorythm used to make the encryption, I do not want to use a close
    > source or untested algothym I will only feel comfortable with
    > AES,Blowfish,Twofish or something like that. I think it is what
    > professional cryptographers always reccomend.
    >
    > 2) Perfomance of the encrypted OS under normal circumstances,
    > email,internet,openoffice,pdf.
    >
    > If anybody has used Securestar or Safeboot please let me know who it went.
    > Thanks.



    The biggest problem with MS software is viruses. It sound like when you are
    running the OS you have decrypted the OS (since you are running it) how
    does this really help you? You still can get a virus/spyware/adware/etc. Is
    it that you do not want anyone to view what you have on your hard disk. Is
    this the only reason why you are considering this?

    If so, look into the encryption that they are using. Stay away from
    proprietary encryption technologies since more often than not, they rely on
    security by obscurity....

    Im
     
    Imhotep, Apr 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Imhotep

    nemo_outis Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    donnie <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:04:30 +0100, box_750 <> wrote:
    >
    >>I am considering whole OS encryption

    > ############################################
    > How long does it take to encrypt and/or decrypt an entire OS? Most
    > users get impatient if they have to wait 90 seconds for any PC related
    > activity.




    Depending on the size of the HD it can take up to several hours to encrypt
    it the first time. However, surprisingly, with some of these packages you
    can continue to work with the drive even as the first-time encryption is
    proceeding. In fact, I've even pulled the plug part way and the thing
    resumed flawlessly when repowered up (not that I recommend doing this, mind
    you).

    After the system is encrypted for the first time the whole thing becomes
    invisible (except for initial password entry) and there is no noticeable
    lag.

    Regards,

    PS I have posted several times in the past about the proper backup drill
    for full HD encryption. Without repeating the whole dreary thing let me
    emphasize that, despite the robustness of first-time encryption, one is a
    fool not to have first made a complete backup (ideally in restorable format
    such as with Ghost or Acronis).
     
    nemo_outis, Apr 29, 2006
    #12
  13. Imhotep

    nemo_outis Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    Imhotep <> wrote in
    news::

    > The biggest problem with MS software is viruses. It sound like when
    > you are running the OS you have decrypted the OS (since you are
    > running it) how does this really help you? You still can get a
    > virus/spyware/adware/etc. Is it that you do not want anyone to view
    > what you have on your hard disk. Is this the only reason why you are
    > considering this?



    Protection against viruses is not the purpose of full HD OTFE encryption.
    However, it does slightly limit some infection paths.

    Not only does it protect data from being read when the machine is off, it
    makes the machine invulnerable to leaked info (there's no place for it to
    leak to) and obviates the need for scrubbing (swap files, registry, etc.,
    etc.) Moreover, it makes it next to impossible to install software
    keyloggers or tamper (except in a random way) with any data, programs, etc.
    on the HD.


    > If so, look into the encryption that they are using. Stay away from
    > proprietary encryption technologies since more often than not, they
    > rely on security by obscurity....



    All the products I listed use mainstream algorithms. With that said,
    though, it's unfortunate that none are open-source (as, for instance,
    Truecrypt is). With encryption the devil is in the details.

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Apr 29, 2006
    #13
  14. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    nemo_outis wrote:

    > Imhotep <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> The biggest problem with MS software is viruses. It sound like when
    >> you are running the OS you have decrypted the OS (since you are
    >> running it) how does this really help you? You still can get a
    >> virus/spyware/adware/etc. Is it that you do not want anyone to view
    >> what you have on your hard disk. Is this the only reason why you are
    >> considering this?

    >
    >
    > Protection against viruses is not the purpose of full HD OTFE encryption.
    > However, it does slightly limit some infection paths.
    >
    > Not only does it protect data from being read when the machine is off, it
    > makes the machine invulnerable to leaked info (there's no place for it to
    > leak to) and obviates the need for scrubbing (swap files, registry, etc.,
    > etc.) Moreover, it makes it next to impossible to install software
    > keyloggers or tamper (except in a random way) with any data, programs,
    > etc. on the HD.
    >
    >
    >> If so, look into the encryption that they are using. Stay away from
    >> proprietary encryption technologies since more often than not, they
    >> rely on security by obscurity....

    >
    >
    > All the products I listed use mainstream algorithms. With that said,
    > though, it's unfortunate that none are open-source (as, for instance,
    > Truecrypt is). With encryption the devil is in the details.
    >
    > Regards,



    ....my question is that when running the OS is NOT in an encrypted state so
    it really does not help at all when you are using the MS PC. In fact, it
    only help prevent someone from:

    1) Booting up the PC (unauthorized)
    2) Someone viewing you hard disk (when the pc is off, or the hard disk has
    been removed)

    ....but really all infections come when the OS is running...

    Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, Apr 29, 2006
    #14
  15. Imhotep

    nemo_outis Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    Imhotep <> wrote in
    news::

    > nemo_outis wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > ...my question is that when running the OS is NOT in an encrypted
    > state so it really does not help at all when you are using the MS PC.
    > In fact, it only help prevent someone from:
    >
    > 1) Booting up the PC (unauthorized)
    > 2) Someone viewing you hard disk (when the pc is off, or the hard disk
    > has been removed)
    >
    > ...but really all infections come when the OS is running...


    Most but by no means all! (Software keyloggers may be installed during
    periods when the operator is away.)

    > Imhotep




    When running, the OS (in fact, the whole HD) is not encrypted (although
    you can certainly supplement the primary full-HD encryption with
    additional layers such as Truecrypt). However, at that point the machine
    is under the custody and control of the rightful operator. So, yes, he
    must exercise all the smae cautions as for an unencrypted machine (to
    prevent viruses, trojans, etc.) especially if the machine is connected to
    a network and/or the internet. In short the legitimate operator can do
    useful things or, through carelessness, etc. allow bad things (e.g.,
    malware) to infest the machine - that's what being in complete control
    necessarily implies! It is unreasonable to expect encryption to protect
    him from himself!.

    (This is also why many TLAs insist that any high-security machine must be
    separated by an "air gap" from any other - no networking, especially the
    internet, allowed)

    The advantages of full HD encryption are:

    1) When the machine is unattended no one can boot up the system and read
    anything or (meaningfully) modify anything on that HD (even if he takes
    the HD away!). The second protection is at least as important as the
    first!

    This is a significant advantage over just using, for instance, Truecrypt,
    in that, while Truecrypt protects its own data perfectly it doesn't
    protect leaks of that data or related metadata (temporary files, the swap
    file, erased space, registry MRUs, and on and on). Moreover, no one can
    (meaningfully) tamper with the computer by inserting, say, a software
    keylogger, a Trojan, a virus, a corrupt DLL, etc. It is in this sense
    that one infection path is closed with full HD encryption.

    2) Even if, say, a software keylogger does get installed (obviously due
    to operator error/carelessness since it can only happen on his watch) it
    is somewhat more circumscribed in its options than on an ordinary
    computer. Keyloggers have two main reporting options: over the
    network/internet or by writing to disk. Full HD encryption does nothing
    to inhibit the first option, but it is very effective against the second
    - while a keylogger could write to disk, a malefactor later attempting to
    read what it wrote would find it literally indecipherable.

    3) The other great advantage is that with full HD OTFE encryption the
    computer can *instantly* achieve the fully-protected state by just
    shutting it down (or, more brutally, pulling the plug). There is no two-
    hour lag while drive leakage is scrubbed. This ensures, for instance,
    that someone can eliminate any vulnerability to a no-knock warrant. (In
    many cases LEOs will actually pull the power themselves when they raid if
    they intend to grab a computer, lest it be scrubbed of evidence.
    However, with full HD encryption this ploy is self-defeating for the
    LEO.)

    Regards,
     
    nemo_outis, Apr 29, 2006
    #15
  16. Imhotep

    Arthur T. Guest

    Container within container (was Re: Whole OS encryption)

    In Message-ID:<Xns97B47A892560Fabcxyzcom@204.153.244.170>,
    "nemo_outis" <> wrote:

    [re: whole-disk encryption]
    >When running, the OS (in fact, the whole HD) is not encrypted (although
    >you can certainly supplement the primary full-HD encryption with
    >additional layers such as Truecrypt).


    For various reasons, I have several Bestcrypt containers.
    It's a pain to mount them with the properly long passphrases
    needed for good security. I was considering the possibility of
    using one large container (with a top-notch passphrase) and then
    having my other containers within it (with somewhat less onerous
    passphrases).

    I was wondering if anyone has done any benchmarks on how disk
    access timings and/or CPU usage are affected with this kind of
    container-within-a-container scheme. (I was hoping not to have to
    do it, myself.) I would expect it to be about the same as a
    container within an encrypted whole disk.

    Another option is to use whole-disk encryption with
    containers (just as you mentioned). But, the same question of
    performance arises.

    --
    Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" speakeasy "dot" net
    Looking for a good MVS systems programmer position
     
    Arthur T., Apr 30, 2006
    #16
  17. Imhotep

    donnie Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:18:55 +0200, Sebastian Gottschalk
    <> wrote:

    >BTW, could you please fix your quoting?

    ###############################
    Is it broken?
     
    donnie, Apr 30, 2006
    #17
  18. Imhotep

    nemo_outis Guest

    Re: Container within container (was Re: Whole OS encryption)

    Arthur T. <> wrote in
    news::

    > I was wondering if anyone has done any benchmarks on how disk
    > access timings and/or CPU usage are affected with this kind of
    > container-within-a-container scheme. (I was hoping not to have to
    > do it, myself.) I would expect it to be about the same as a
    > container within an encrypted whole disk.
    >
    > Another option is to use whole-disk encryption with
    > containers (just as you mentioned). But, the same question of
    > performance arises.



    I have not done any performance benchmarks but there is much to be said
    for encryption within encryption (i.e., partition/container encryption
    within full boot HD encryption).

    1) It provides considerable belt-and-suspenders backup in case one of
    the two manufacturers has an implementation flaw or even a backdoor.
    Obviously the two encryption schemes should not be from the same
    manufacturer (e.g., Securstar) or, for the truly paranoid, from the same
    country (e.g., US).

    2) It's handy if the machine is shared between multiple users: each can
    have his own Truecrypt (say) container with overall OS protection
    provided by the shared full HD encryption. This even provides some
    (limited) protection while surfing if the Truecrypt containers are not
    mounted in the decrypted state. At the loss of the benefit in 1) above
    but the gain of some performance, the Truecrypt containers/partitions
    could be on separate drives or partitions rather than nested within the
    encrypted OS partition/drive.

    Regards,

    PS There is now a halfway-house third-party extension of Truecrypt
    (TCGINA) which takes it part way to achieving the benefits of full boot
    HD encryption. This extension can protect the swap file, a user's
    registry hives, temp files, etc. See:

    http://www.truecrypt.org/third-party-projects/tcgina/

    PPS An alternative way of sharing a computer is for each person to have
    his own HD which is carried in one of these "caddy" affairs and mounted
    in a "receiver" in a drive bay on the computer when it's his turn to use
    the computer. As cheap as $20 for the receiver and $20 for each caddy
    here in Canada. (It's a bit more for high quality shockproofed metal ones
    rather than cheaper plastic ones.) Obviously (some/all of) the HDs could
    be protected by full OTFE HD encryption with unique passwords if desired.
    With HDs so cheap this is quite a workable solution for, say, a
    (paranoid) family :)
     
    nemo_outis, Apr 30, 2006
    #18
  19. Re: Whole OS encryption

    donnie wrote:
    > On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 02:18:55 +0200, Sebastian Gottschalk
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> BTW, could you please fix your quoting?

    > ###############################
    > Is it broken?


    Yes. Overly long and redundant introduction line, and the '#' delimiting
    is simply ugly and useless.
    And your reply address seems to be broken, too.
     
    Sebastian Gottschalk, Apr 30, 2006
    #19
  20. Imhotep

    ~David~ Guest

    Re: Whole OS encryption

    Gerard Bok wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:04:30 +0100, box_750 <> wrote:
    >
    >> I am considering whole OS encryption as this seems to me the safest
    >> choice.

    >
    >> The idea of encrypting the whole OS seems very smart to me as it saves
    >> times and in my view it makes it harder to get into as virtually
    >> everything is encrypted, I wanted to know the oppinion of the experts...

    >

    While whole disk encryption is nice if done right, unless you want to pay for a
    commercial program like PGP wholedisk, it is not always easy and safe, in terms
    of data loss potential. As others have pointed out, a container solution for
    sensitive data, like TrueCrypt or similar mechanisms may be easier and more
    useful, as why do you need to really encrypt the windows directory or the entire
    program files directory. And while your choice of algorithms like AES or
    blowfish is tops, the reality is if someone wants to get to your data, the
    easiest route is usually through flaws in the encryption software, OS, keyboard
    loggers, or some other "mundane" route, not by trying to crack the encryption key.

    That said, I use loop-aes on linux to encrypt the entire partition; it took
    about 1.5 hours to encrypt the partition (3 ghz P4, AES-256, 8 gig partition),
    several hours to set the whole thing up, and this was after a few unsuccessful
    tries that took a few hours each.

    ~David~
     
    ~David~, Apr 30, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Modemac
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    755
    jayembee
    Nov 20, 2004
  2. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,146
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  3. Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    392
  4. Philip

    Re: copyright amendment bill

    Philip, Feb 10, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    550
    jasen
    Feb 12, 2007
  5. Frank Merlott
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,264
    VanguardLH
    May 15, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page