Open Source package's security "insufficient" and "vulnerable to many potential malware attacks"

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Fred Dagg, Aug 14, 2006.

  1. Fred Dagg

    Fred Dagg Guest

    For all the "OSS is secure!" crowd, you've been proven wrong yet
    again. This time in relation to OpenOffice.org, the bloated, buggy,
    and now insecure OSS poster-boy of an office suite:


    "With Microsoft's Office suite now being targeted by hackers,
    researchers at the French Ministry of Defense say users of the
    OpenOffice.org software may be at even greater risk from computer
    viruses.

    "The general security of OpenOffice is insufficient," the researchers
    write in a paper entitled "In-depth analysis of the viral threats with
    OpenOffice.org documents".

    "This suite is up to now still vulnerable to many potential malware
    attacks," they write.

    The paper describes four proof-of-concept viruses that illustrate how
    maliciously encoded macros and templates could be created to
    compromise systems running the open-source software. "The viral hazard
    attached to OpenOffice.org is at least as high as that for the
    Microsoft Office suite, and even higher when considering some...
    aspects," they write."

    ....

    These latest bugs show that the open-source project has some security
    work ahead of it, says Russ Cooper, a senior information security
    analyst at Cybertrust. "If these types of vulnerabilities had been
    discovered in Microsoft Office, it would be front-page news," he says.
    "Whoever did the security for OpenOffice has totally ignored what
    Microsoft has gone through with the security of their own Office
    documents."

    Full text:
    http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/589C0FFAAE7E260ACC2571CA001BE8F6
     
    Fred Dagg, Aug 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Fred Dagg

    AD. Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > For all the "OSS is secure!" crowd, you've been proven wrong yet
    > again. This time in relation to OpenOffice.org, the bloated, buggy,
    > and now insecure OSS poster-boy of an office suite:


    Open Office is hardly a typical open source project.

    It spent many many years as a crappy closed cource product that nobody
    used, then got bought and opened up by Sun who still seem to be the
    only people that actually do any work on it because the code is too
    complex and convoluted to bother with unless you are paid to. Also
    being that nearly all open source developers have no use for an office
    suite, there are few developers that have an itch to scratch with it.

    Nobody (OK maybe one specific person hehe) would claim that the act of
    opening up the code would magically transform the existing crappy
    codebase.

    Yet you make out it is some sort of 'open source poster boy'. The only
    people who hold it up as some sort of poster boy are clueless
    journalists that can't really think of software beyond office suites.

    Open Office being insecure or not really has nothing to do whether or
    not Open Source in general is or isn't secure.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Fred Dagg

    Earl Grey Guest

    Re: Open Source package's security "insufficient" and "vulnerableto many potential malware attacks"

    AD. wrote:

    >
    > Open Office is hardly a typical open source project.
    >
    > It spent many many years as a crappy closed cource product that nobody
    > used, then got bought and opened up by Sun who still seem to be the
    > only people that actually do any work on it because the code is too
    > complex and convoluted to bother with unless you are paid to. Also
    > being that nearly all open source developers have no use for an office
    > suite, there are few developers that have an itch to scratch with it.
    >
    > Nobody (OK maybe one specific person hehe) would claim that the act of
    > opening up the code would magically transform the existing crappy
    > codebase.
    >
    > Yet you make out it is some sort of 'open source poster boy'. The only
    > people who hold it up as some sort of poster boy are clueless
    > journalists that can't really think of software beyond office suites.
    >
    > Open Office being insecure or not really has nothing to do whether or
    > not Open Source in general is or isn't secure.
    >


    Its like saying that Microsoft Office could be susceptible to Macro viruses.
    Comes with the territory for anything scriptable.
     
    Earl Grey, Aug 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Fred Dagg

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On 14 Aug 2006 16:22:45 -0700, "AD." <> exclaimed:

    >Fred Dagg wrote:
    >> For all the "OSS is secure!" crowd, you've been proven wrong yet
    >> again. This time in relation to OpenOffice.org, the bloated, buggy,
    >> and now insecure OSS poster-boy of an office suite:

    >
    >Open Office is hardly a typical open source project.
    >
    >It spent many many years as a crappy closed cource product that nobody
    >used, then got bought and opened up by Sun who still seem to be the
    >only people that actually do any work on it because the code is too
    >complex and convoluted to bother with unless you are paid to. Also
    >being that nearly all open source developers have no use for an office
    >suite, there are few developers that have an itch to scratch with it.


    Interesting - I thought OSS people would be trying to distance
    themselves from it.

    It is ALWAYS mentioned when people are going on about replacing
    Windows on the desktop.
     
    Fred Dagg, Aug 15, 2006
    #4
  5. Fred Dagg

    AD. Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > Interesting - I thought OSS people would be trying to distance
    > themselves from it.


    Well I've never liked it, and have for quite a while now thought the
    whole idea of an office suite is a bit misguided. The whole 'document'
    based way of working is tired and far too paper oriented. The whole
    historical metaphors of computerised office desks, with page based
    documents and file servers pretending to be filing cabinets and folders
    etc and users spending more time paying with print formatting than
    actually working with information etc needs to go I reckon.

    Sure a word processor is good for typing up a letter, but when all you
    have is a word processor everything looks like a letter.

    Because of the huge cash cow Office is to MS, they seem to be
    continuing with this flawed document metaphor and trying to extend it
    (eg Sharepoint etc) into an online shared world. I reckon they should
    step back a bit and think more about information rather than documents.

    > It is ALWAYS mentioned when people are going on about replacing
    > Windows on the desktop.


    Ahhh, people that want to screw consessions out of MS next time their
    licensing agreements come up, journalists wanting a story, or
    evangelistic idiots wanting to convert the masses without actually
    contributing anything useful to OSS themselves.

    I wouldn't really class any of them as OSS people - those people have
    already shifted to OSS and are quite comfortable with their decision.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 15, 2006
    #5
  6. Fred Dagg

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On 14 Aug 2006 17:14:04 -0700, "AD." <> exclaimed:

    >Fred Dagg wrote:
    >> Interesting - I thought OSS people would be trying to distance
    >> themselves from it.

    >
    >Well I've never liked it, and have for quite a while now thought the
    >whole idea of an office suite is a bit misguided. The whole 'document'
    >based way of working is tired and far too paper oriented. The whole
    >historical metaphors of computerised office desks, with page based
    >documents and file servers pretending to be filing cabinets and folders
    >etc and users spending more time paying with print formatting than
    >actually working with information etc needs to go I reckon.


    Interesting theory.

    So what would you propose instead?
     
    Fred Dagg, Aug 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Fred Dagg

    Philip Guest

    Re: Open Source package's security "insufficient" and "vulnerableto many potential malware attacks"

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On 14 Aug 2006 16:22:45 -0700, "AD." <> exclaimed:
    >
    >> Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>> For all the "OSS is secure!" crowd, you've been proven wrong yet
    >>> again. This time in relation to OpenOffice.org, the bloated, buggy,
    >>> and now insecure OSS poster-boy of an office suite:

    >> Open Office is hardly a typical open source project.
    >>
    >> It spent many many years as a crappy closed cource product that nobody
    >> used, then got bought and opened up by Sun who still seem to be the
    >> only people that actually do any work on it because the code is too
    >> complex and convoluted to bother with unless you are paid to. Also
    >> being that nearly all open source developers have no use for an office
    >> suite, there are few developers that have an itch to scratch with it.

    >
    > Interesting - I thought OSS people would be trying to distance
    > themselves from it.
    >
    > It is ALWAYS mentioned when people are going on about replacing
    > Windows on the desktop.

    Even though there is as good functionality and compatibility for most
    users from Abiword or 602.

    OOo needs to go through the sort of epipühany that turned big fat
    bloatfilled Mozilla browser into Firefox.

    Meaning: start over from scratch.

    Philip
     
    Philip, Aug 15, 2006
    #7
  8. Fred Dagg

    Philip Guest

    Re: Open Source package's security "insufficient" and "vulnerableto many potential malware attacks"

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On 14 Aug 2006 17:14:04 -0700, "AD." <> exclaimed:
    >
    >> Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>> Interesting - I thought OSS people would be trying to distance
    >>> themselves from it.

    >> Well I've never liked it, and have for quite a while now thought the
    >> whole idea of an office suite is a bit misguided. The whole 'document'
    >> based way of working is tired and far too paper oriented. The whole
    >> historical metaphors of computerised office desks, with page based
    >> documents and file servers pretending to be filing cabinets and folders
    >> etc and users spending more time paying with print formatting than
    >> actually working with information etc needs to go I reckon.

    >
    > Interesting theory.
    >
    > So what would you propose instead?


    What sort of work are you wanting to use it for?

    Philip
     
    Philip, Aug 15, 2006
    #8
  9. Fred Dagg

    AD. Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > Interesting theory.
    >
    > So what would you propose instead?


    I'm not going to claim the average 'office worker' can be weaned off
    their word processors just yet, and what works in company A won't
    necessarily work in company B etc - but we've been making a conscious
    effort to move away from the document / file share way of storing
    content.

    We are a software development company though - so it is a different
    playing field than other organisations. But we used to be heavily
    document based for all our systems and product documentation, planning
    decisions etc etc. Finding and figuring out where to store information
    was painful (and one dimensional). But gradually even the non technical
    staff have come around to seeing there are alternatives. Sure you can
    add extra layers of software on top of your documents (eg document
    management systems etc) to try and hide the problems, or you can take a
    different approach.

    We've moved towards open formats and markup languages. eg DITA is an
    XML format geared towards technical information, content reuse, and
    singlesource publishing. Using open formats means that people can use
    whatever applications or platforms they want - eg managers on Windows,
    designers on Macs, and developers on *nix. The content isn't tied to
    the applications that create it. Text based formats can be easily
    version controlled (TortoiseSVN is a friendly interface for non
    developers). Open formats can be easily tranformed into other formats
    etc.

    All our general internal docs and planning collaboration happens in a
    wiki, which helps with easy editing, searching, cross linking etc etc.
    Remote working becomes easier, and for a small business much easier to
    outsource the infrastructure if you want (we don't though). We've
    already migrated to a different wiki once (the choices weren't as wide
    when we first started), and it wasn't as painful as feared.

    The only things we still do on word processors are proposals, formal
    letters to clients or lawyers/accountants etc. And these all go out via
    PDF anyway, so the actual file format they were written is unrelated to
    the output.

    We're still only part way through the whole process, but it is already
    a much better way of working. It's no silver bullet, and it takes some
    effort to switch. Some people take longer than others to 'get it' too.
    But in the end it is liberating.

    People get far too caught up in how applications 'integrate' and wind
    up with complex setups that can never be changed because there will
    never be an alternative that does that whole vertical stack of stuff.
    Instead of looking for ways to 'integrate' applications, it is far
    better to concentrate on decoupling them instead and focussing on open
    formats for interoperability.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 15, 2006
    #9
  10. Fred Dagg

    Earl Grey Guest

    Re: Open Source package's security "insufficient" and "vulnerableto many potential malware attacks"

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > On 14 Aug 2006 16:22:45 -0700, "AD." <> exclaimed:
    >
    >> Fred Dagg wrote:
    >>> For all the "OSS is secure!" crowd, you've been proven wrong yet
    >>> again. This time in relation to OpenOffice.org, the bloated, buggy,
    >>> and now insecure OSS poster-boy of an office suite:

    >> Open Office is hardly a typical open source project.
    >>
    >> It spent many many years as a crappy closed cource product that nobody
    >> used, then got bought and opened up by Sun who still seem to be the
    >> only people that actually do any work on it because the code is too
    >> complex and convoluted to bother with unless you are paid to. Also
    >> being that nearly all open source developers have no use for an office
    >> suite, there are few developers that have an itch to scratch with it.

    >
    > Interesting - I thought OSS people would be trying to distance
    > themselves from it.
    >
    > It is ALWAYS mentioned when people are going on about replacing
    > Windows on the desktop.


    Its more a Microsoft Office replacement than a Windows replacement.
    Its very popular on Windows. Its commitment to being a cross platform
    solution may impact on its performance compared to MSOffice.
    There are a range of other word processors and spreadsheets and
    organizers and presetation packages available for linux users, but
    theres no big push to bundle them except for KOffice.
     
    Earl Grey, Aug 15, 2006
    #10
  11. Fred Dagg

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:22:45 -0700, AD. wrote:

    >
    > It spent many many years as a crappy closed cource product that nobody
    > used, then got bought and opened up by Sun who still seem to be the
    > only people that actually do any work on it because the code is too
    > complex and convoluted to bother with unless you are paid to. Also
    > being that nearly all open source developers have no use for an office
    > suite, there are few developers that have an itch to scratch with it.
    >

    Shows just how much FUD you can spout. Some of the core developers are
    Kiwi, and I haven't seen much of a Sun presence in this country since I've
    been here... although I have met OO developers.

    Has anyone looked into who owns cybertrust? For a security company, the
    quality of the website, and it's reliance on flash ( and security by
    obscurity ) puts me off immediately.

    And, yes, I do use linux almost exclusively, now that the solaris/hp-ux
    market has dried up - but no, I'll never pretend that the linux desktop is
    as mature or useable as the Microsoft one.

    I just hate to see this sort of misinformed crap spouted either for or
    against.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Aug 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Fred Dagg

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On 14 Aug 2006 18:42:42 -0700, "AD." <> exclaimed:

    >Fred Dagg wrote:
    >> Interesting theory.
    >>
    >> So what would you propose instead?

    >
    >I'm not going to claim the average 'office worker' can be weaned off
    >their word processors just yet, and what works in company A won't
    >necessarily work in company B etc - but we've been making a conscious
    >effort to move away from the document / file share way of storing
    >content.
    >
    >We are a software development company though - so it is a different
    >playing field than other organisations. But we used to be heavily
    >document based for all our systems and product documentation, planning
    >decisions etc etc. Finding and figuring out where to store information
    >was painful (and one dimensional). But gradually even the non technical
    >staff have come around to seeing there are alternatives. Sure you can
    >add extra layers of software on top of your documents (eg document
    >management systems etc) to try and hide the problems, or you can take a
    >different approach.
    >
    >We've moved towards open formats and markup languages. eg DITA is an
    >XML format geared towards technical information, content reuse, and
    >singlesource publishing. Using open formats means that people can use
    >whatever applications or platforms they want - eg managers on Windows,
    >designers on Macs, and developers on *nix. The content isn't tied to
    >the applications that create it. Text based formats can be easily
    >version controlled (TortoiseSVN is a friendly interface for non
    >developers). Open formats can be easily tranformed into other formats
    >etc.
    >
    >All our general internal docs and planning collaboration happens in a
    >wiki, which helps with easy editing, searching, cross linking etc etc.
    >Remote working becomes easier, and for a small business much easier to
    >outsource the infrastructure if you want (we don't though). We've
    >already migrated to a different wiki once (the choices weren't as wide
    >when we first started), and it wasn't as painful as feared.
    >
    >The only things we still do on word processors are proposals, formal
    >letters to clients or lawyers/accountants etc. And these all go out via
    >PDF anyway, so the actual file format they were written is unrelated to
    >the output.
    >
    >We're still only part way through the whole process, but it is already
    >a much better way of working. It's no silver bullet, and it takes some
    >effort to switch. Some people take longer than others to 'get it' too.
    >But in the end it is liberating.
    >
    >People get far too caught up in how applications 'integrate' and wind
    >up with complex setups that can never be changed because there will
    >never be an alternative that does that whole vertical stack of stuff.
    >Instead of looking for ways to 'integrate' applications, it is far
    >better to concentrate on decoupling them instead and focussing on open
    >formats for interoperability.


    Very interesting, actually.

    As a matter of interest, what Wiki do you use, and why?

    We're currently using MediaWiki, but are considering changing.
     
    Fred Dagg, Aug 15, 2006
    #12
  13. Fred Dagg

    AD. Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > As a matter of interest, what Wiki do you use, and why?
    >
    > We're currently using MediaWiki, but are considering changing.


    We started off with Twiki in about 2002 or so. Then about 2 years ago
    we switched to Confluence which is a commercial Java product made by
    the same people as JIRA (an issue tracking system).

    Confluence is one of the best I reckon, although it wasn't my choice.
    The developers who were already using JIRA pushed for it. Confluence
    does integrate with JIRA, but its just some macros that import/export
    RSS feeds as far as I can tell.

    TWiki had a lot of very powerful features, especially compared to the
    others back in 2002. But I didn't like the infrastructure so much -
    Perl CGI and RCS.

    Another Wiki I'd be happy to use would be MoinMoin, but that is
    probably my Python bias showing through :)

    And for a development shop Trac could be a good choice, especially if
    you haven't yet chosen a source control (or already use Subversion) or
    issue tracking system.

    I haven't actually used MediaWiki, but it has an ok reputation.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Aug 15, 2006
    #13
  14. Fred Dagg

    thingy Guest

    Re: Open Source package's security "insufficient" and "vulnerableto many potential malware attacks"

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > For all the "OSS is secure!" crowd, you've been proven wrong yet
    > again. This time in relation to OpenOffice.org, the bloated, buggy,
    > and now insecure OSS poster-boy of an office suite:


    Only to Open Office, which is a one off application, there is no generic
    case here.

    There is no valid argument that OSS is secure anyway, just if it is
    "more" secure than the proprietry, which it probably is.

    Nice troll, 2/10...try harder.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thingy, Aug 16, 2006
    #14
  15. Fred Dagg

    peterwn Guest

    Fred Dagg wrote:
    > For all the "OSS is secure!" crowd, you've been proven wrong yet
    > again. This time in relation to OpenOffice.org, the bloated, buggy,
    > and now insecure OSS poster-boy of an office suite:
    >
    >
    > "With Microsoft's Office suite now being targeted by hackers,
    > researchers at the French Ministry of Defense say users of the
    > OpenOffice.org software may be at even greater risk from computer
    > viruses.
    >
    > "The general security of OpenOffice is insufficient," the researchers
    > write in a paper entitled "In-depth analysis of the viral threats with
    > OpenOffice.org documents".
    >
    > "This suite is up to now still vulnerable to many potential malware
    > attacks," they write.


    Firstly, it is most probable that items opened would need to contain
    macros which the user runs.

    Granted, a macro virus in the Windows version of OO may take control of
    the whole machine.

    A macro virus for the Linux version would need to be separately coded,
    and indeed may need to be separately coded for each Linux distribution.
    It would only be able to access 'user' space, it is very unlikely to
    take over the whole machine. Agreed it could possibly turn the machine
    into a 'spambot' at 'user' level, but this has not happened yet.

    The French Ministry of Defence has contributed to the development of OO
    in its report as this will help OO maintainers to patch the code.

    Knowing French nationalism, it is most likely that the French want a
    viable alternative product to Microsoft products, and OO s potentially
    a good option.

    >
    > The paper describes four proof-of-concept viruses that illustrate how
    > maliciously encoded macros and templates could be created to
    > compromise systems running the open-source software. "The viral hazard
    > attached to OpenOffice.org is at least as high as that for the
    > Microsoft Office suite, and even higher when considering some...
    > aspects," they write."


    This is not very damning at all.

    >
    > ...
    >
    > These latest bugs show that the open-source project has some security
    > work ahead of it, says Russ Cooper, a senior information security
    > analyst at Cybertrust.


    OO developers would be the first to admit this.

    > "If these types of vulnerabilities had been
    > discovered in Microsoft Office, it would be front-page news," he says.
    > "Whoever did the security for OpenOffice has totally ignored what
    > Microsoft has gone through with the security of their own Office
    > documents."


    Considering that Office is used by millions, this is not surprising.
    What is surprising is that given all its resources, Microsoft has not
    had the real will to build real security into MS Office

    Agreed that OO secuity issues have not attracted front page press
    because of the relatively small current user base. However most
    security bugs will be ironed out before penetration of OO is such that
    it could attract attention from malware writers.

    With regard to "Fred Dagg's" (AKA Flatfish+++, AKS Steve Ballmer's
    local shill) opening assertion, he does not indicate MS Windows and MS
    Office are any better in this regard, on the contrary because of design
    and coding philosophies, security improvements in Linux and OO would be
    easier to implement, not to mention continuing peer review by millions
    of pairs of eyes around the world from the French Ministry of Defence
    to the basement hacker, all working together for a better product.
     
    peterwn, Aug 16, 2006
    #15
  16. Fred Dagg

    peterwn Guest

    Steve wrote:
    >
    > I just hate to see this sort of misinformed crap spouted either for or
    > against.
    >

    You are a real gentleman, so restrained in your comments. I would just
    call "Fred Dagg" a M$ shill. I would not be surprised if he works for
    Microsoft or is dependent on the Microsoft food chain.
     
    peterwn, Aug 16, 2006
    #16
  17. Fred Dagg

    Steve Guest

    On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:30:59 -0700, AD. wrote:

    > I haven't actually used MediaWiki, but it has an ok reputation.


    's ok. I still haven't got my head around stopping it getting hacked, but
    that's probably generic to running a wiki.

    That little known site wikipedia like mediawiki, and they keep seeming to
    get defaced... mainly my the staff of certain US politicians :)
     
    Steve, Aug 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Fred Dagg

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On 16 Aug 2006 00:59:59 -0700, "peterwn" <>
    exclaimed:

    >
    >Steve wrote:
    >>
    >> I just hate to see this sort of misinformed crap spouted either for or
    >> against.
    >>

    >You are a real gentleman, so restrained in your comments. I would just
    >call "Fred Dagg" a M$ shill. I would not be surprised if he works for
    >Microsoft or is dependent on the Microsoft food chain.


    He wasn't talking about me, buddy.

    And no, I don't work for Microsoft.
     
    Fred Dagg, Aug 16, 2006
    #18
  19. Fred Dagg

    Peter Guest

    peterwn wrote:
    > What is surprising is that given all its resources, Microsoft has not
    > had the real will to build real security into MS Office


    Not really surprising, as there is not need to go to the bother.
    Just come up with some marketing slogan like "trustworthy computing". Most
    users and IT "professionals" will just believe whatever MS tells them,
    ignoring any evidence of trojans, botnets and viruses.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Aug 16, 2006
    #19
  20. Fred Dagg

    Fred Dagg Guest

    On 15 Aug 2006 21:42:36 -0700, "peterwn" <>
    exclaimed:

    >
    >Considering that Office is used by millions, this is not surprising.
    >What is surprising is that given all its resources, Microsoft has not
    >had the real will to build real security into MS Office


    That's a pretty silly statement, and made without any regard for the
    facts.

    Microsoft Office's security has been extensively hardened. Any
    security expert in the world worth a pinch of salt will tell you that
    actually now the security model in Office is quite good.
     
    Fred Dagg, Aug 17, 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. serge

    Insufficient memory

    serge, Jul 16, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    4,141
  2. pbdb

    Insufficient memory

    pbdb, Oct 10, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,726
    Buffalo
    Oct 10, 2003
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open-Source Good, Closed-Source Bad

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    522
    Gordon
    Oct 16, 2005
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Closed-Source vs Open-Source Drivers

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, May 4, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    562
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    May 5, 2009
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Open Source vs Closed Source Security

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Mar 3, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,060
    Gordon
    Mar 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page