Re: Ripping DVDs. Please answer the attached question. - Question.txt

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Stan Brown, Feb 8, 2005.

  1. Stan Brown

    Stan Brown Guest

    "pilgrim" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >begin 644 Question.txt
    >M22!H879E(&$@1%9$(&]F(")287DN(B`@5VAE;B!)('!L87D@:70@=&AE(&UE
    >M;G4@9VEV97,@82!C:&]I8V4@;V8@(D5X=&5N9&5D(%!L87DB('9E<G-U<R`B


    Nice try.

    On the off change that you're _not_ posting malware, please try
    again in plain text.

    --

    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com/
     
    Stan Brown, Feb 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stan Brown

    Joe Blow Guest

    Stan Brown wrote:

    > "pilgrim" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >
    >>begin 644 Question.txt
    >>M22!H879E(&$@1%9$(&]F(")287DN(B`@5VAE;B!)('!L87D@:70@=&AE(&UE
    >>M;G4@9VEV97,@82!C:&]I8V4@;V8@(D5X=&5N9&5D(%!L87DB('9E<G-U<R`B

    >
    >
    > Nice try.
    >
    > On the off change that you're _not_ posting malware, please try
    > again in plain text.


    Just out of curiousity, what have you uncovered about pilgrim's
    post? How is it that one spreads malware in a newsgroup post
    (aside from the obvious, attaching an exectuable or something)?

    JB
     
    Joe Blow, Feb 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Stan Brown

    Stan Brown Guest

    "Joe Blow" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >Just out of curiousity, what have you uncovered about pilgrim's
    >post? How is it that one spreads malware in a newsgroup post
    >(aside from the obvious, attaching an exectuable or something)?


    Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no longer
    a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should not
    be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an executable.

    --

    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com/
     
    Stan Brown, Feb 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Stan Brown

    P Pron Guest

    Stan Brown wrote:
    > "Joe Blow" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >> Just out of curiousity, what have you uncovered about pilgrim's
    >> post? How is it that one spreads malware in a newsgroup post
    >> (aside from the obvious, attaching an exectuable or something)?

    >
    > Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no longer
    > a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should not
    > be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an executable.


    I'm puzzled. If a file has a .txt suffix, won't it _only_ open in Notepad -
    or whatever you have as your default for reading text files? I'm not
    arguing - I just don't understand. Surely you'd have to *rename* it with a
    different suffix in order to get it to act as anything but a text file?

    paul
     
    P Pron, Feb 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Stan Brown

    TT Guest

    "P Pron" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Stan Brown wrote:
    > > "Joe Blow" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    > >> Just out of curiousity, what have you uncovered about pilgrim's
    > >> post? How is it that one spreads malware in a newsgroup post
    > >> (aside from the obvious, attaching an exectuable or something)?

    > >
    > > Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no longer
    > > a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should not
    > > be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an executable.

    >
    > I'm puzzled. If a file has a .txt suffix, won't it _only_ open in

    Notepad -
    > or whatever you have as your default for reading text files? I'm not
    > arguing - I just don't understand. Surely you'd have to *rename* it with a
    > different suffix in order to get it to act as anything but a text file?
    >
    > paul
    >

    I have been caught like this. For instance you may have a *.txt file that
    you think is a text file or even ( a more popular one is *.scr - screen
    saver file) but in actual fact it is a *.txt.exe where the exe is hidden to
    a casual view. These are nasty and you need to keep your virus scanner up
    to date. I learned the hard way :-( BTW once opened they can't be deleted
    because they automatically un-delete and re-appear at next boot as a
    completely different named file. If you think you have one of these
    *nasties* do a search for " *.txt.exe or *.scr.exe" you may be surprised.

    Regardless I just do not open anything that I think is suspect. Attachments
    in a NG is one of them ;-)

    Regards TT
     
    TT, Feb 8, 2005
    #5
  6. Stan Brown

    Bill Turner Guest

    On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 01:26:11 -0500, Stan Brown
    <> wrote:

    >Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no longer
    >a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should not
    >be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an executable.

    ___________________________________________________________

    First I've heard of this. What's your source of information?

    --
    BT
     
    Bill Turner, Feb 8, 2005
    #6
  7. Stan Brown

    Dick Sidbury Guest

    Bill Turner wrote:
    > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 01:26:11 -0500, Stan Brown
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no longer
    >>a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should not
    >>be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an executable.

    >
    > ___________________________________________________________
    >
    > First I've heard of this. What's your source of information?
    >

    try the following. Take an executable file that's harmless, say
    notepad.exe. mail it to yourself as an attachment. open the attachment
    and you should see notepad. (NOte that I haven't actually tried this
    but have been told that it works.) Now take that copy and rename it
    NudeBrittany.jpg.exe for example and mail it to yourself as an
    attachment. The name of the attachment will be NudeBrittany.jpg so you
    have an executable which appears to not be an executable. Note that
    this was a problem with outlook express about a year ago. I don't use
    OE so I don't know if it's been fixed.

    HTH

    dick
     
    Dick Sidbury, Feb 8, 2005
    #7
  8. Stan Brown

    Stan Brown Guest

    "P Pron" wrote in alt.video.dvd:

    >I'm puzzled. If a file has a .txt suffix, won't it _only_ open in Notepad -
    >or whatever you have as your default for reading text files? I'm not
    >arguing - I just don't understand. Surely you'd have to *rename* it with a
    >different suffix in order to get it to act as anything but a text file?


    This is OT for this group, atd it's at or beyond the limits of my
    expertise anyway, but here goes:

    (1) In mail, an attachment can look like a .txt extension but
    actually have .pif or .exe or .dll or something else executable.
    That's why mail is an even bigger worry than Usenet.

    (2) You're right that a .txt file will almost certainly open in
    Notepad if double clicked, just as a .gif or .jpg file will almost
    certainly open in an image editor if double clicked. But I read
    recently about an exploit involving buffer overruns in images that
    make least some image editors execute unwanted instructions. It's
    only a matter of time till someone discovers and uses a similar
    flaw in Notepad.

    But the clincher, which is ON topic, is that this newsgroup doesn't
    have "binaries" in its name and therefore articles are all supposed
    to be in plain text, no attachments.

    --

    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com/
     
    Stan Brown, Feb 8, 2005
    #8
  9. Stan Brown

    Jon Purkey Guest

    On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:55:58 -0500, Dick Sidbury
    <> wrote:

    >try the following. Take an executable file that's harmless, say
    >notepad.exe. mail it to yourself as an attachment. open the attachment
    >and you should see notepad. (NOte that I haven't actually tried this
    >but have been told that it works.) Now take that copy and rename it
    >NudeBrittany.jpg.exe for example and mail it to yourself as an
    >attachment. The name of the attachment will be NudeBrittany.jpg so you
    >have an executable which appears to not be an executable. Note that
    >this was a problem with outlook express about a year ago. I don't use
    >OE so I don't know if it's been fixed.


    I deleted OE from my computer a long time ago.

    Also, under Explorer I unchecked the option that says: "Hide file
    extensions for known file types." (Tools / Folder Options / View tab)
    I believe that by default, at least in Win98, it is checked. That way
    a file called "whatever.txt.exe" will show up as "whatever.txt.exe"
    and not "whatever.txt".

    Still, that being said, I would never open any file posted to a
    newsgroup by double clicking on it. If I was very curious then I would
    use the File / Open option of Notepad.


    -
    -Jon Purkey - <)
    For a quicker reply by email please use the
    address found here: http://tinyurl.com/o8ka
     
    Jon Purkey, Feb 8, 2005
    #9
  10. Stan Brown

    P Pron Guest

    Jon Purkey wrote:
    > On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 08:55:58 -0500, Dick Sidbury
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> try the following. Take an executable file that's harmless, say
    >> notepad.exe. mail it to yourself as an attachment. open the
    >> attachment and you should see notepad. (NOte that I haven't
    >> actually tried this but have been told that it works.) Now take
    >> that copy and rename it NudeBrittany.jpg.exe for example and mail it
    >> to yourself as an attachment. The name of the attachment will be
    >> NudeBrittany.jpg so you have an executable which appears to not be
    >> an executable. Note that this was a problem with outlook express
    >> about a year ago. I don't use OE so I don't know if it's been fixed.

    >
    > I deleted OE from my computer a long time ago.
    >
    > Also, under Explorer I unchecked the option that says: "Hide file
    > extensions for known file types." (Tools / Folder Options / View tab)
    > I believe that by default, at least in Win98, it is checked. That way
    > a file called "whatever.txt.exe" will show up as "whatever.txt.exe"
    > and not "whatever.txt".
    >
    > Still, that being said, I would never open any file posted to a
    > newsgroup by double clicking on it. If I was very curious then I would
    > use the File / Open option of Notepad.
    >

    Thanks for that explanation - I'd completely forgotten that stupid "Hide
    File Extensions...." thing. I unchecked it as well because I like to know
    what I've got in my computer. Until you jogged my memory, the other
    explanations were leaving me completely bewildered!

    paul
     
    P Pron, Feb 8, 2005
    #10
  11. Stan Brown

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Bill Turner wrote:
    > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 01:26:11 -0500, Stan Brown
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no longer
    >> a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should not
    >> be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an executable.

    > ___________________________________________________________
    >
    > First I've heard of this. What's your source of information?


    Most casual users still have "hide file extensions" enabled (which is the
    default in Windows, stupidly enough). Also, I believe it's easy to
    manipulate what Outlook Express shows for an extension, even if it's not the
    real extension. In this particular case, though the extension said it was a
    ..txt file, it most definitely was not a simple ascii text file. It's either
    a binary file or an encoded file. I don't know what it is precisely, and
    I'm not about to find out. ;)

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Mike Kohary, Feb 9, 2005
    #11
  12. Stan Brown

    Whoops Guest

    But can anyone answer his original question ????




    "Mike Kohary" <> wrote in message
    news:cubqee$r3f$...
    > Bill Turner wrote:
    >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 01:26:11 -0500, Stan Brown
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no longer
    >>> a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should not
    >>> be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an executable.

    >> ___________________________________________________________
    >>
    >> First I've heard of this. What's your source of information?

    >
    > Most casual users still have "hide file extensions" enabled (which is the
    > default in Windows, stupidly enough). Also, I believe it's easy to
    > manipulate what Outlook Express shows for an extension, even if it's not
    > the real extension. In this particular case, though the extension said it
    > was a .txt file, it most definitely was not a simple ascii text file.
    > It's either a binary file or an encoded file. I don't know what it is
    > precisely, and I'm not about to find out. ;)
    >
    > --
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    > Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
    >
    > Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    > Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
     
    Whoops, Feb 9, 2005
    #12
  13. Stan Brown

    Stan Brown Guest

    "Whoops" wrote in alt.video.dvd:
    >But can anyone answer his original question ????


    As I said, if he posts it in plain text I'll try to answer it. No
    way am I opening a posted attachment.

    --

    Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
    http://OakRoadSystems.com/
     
    Stan Brown, Feb 9, 2005
    #13
  14. Stan Brown

    Bill Turner Guest

    On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:40:16 +1000, "Whoops" <>
    wrote:

    >But can anyone answer his original question ????

    ___________________________________________________________

    Lemme try, now that I think I understand it. If a file has a .txt
    extension, and your file associations have not been messed with, double
    clicking on it will send it to Notepad. If it is actually an executable
    file which has had it's extension changed to .txt, Notepad will open it,
    but not execute it. All you'll see is a bunch of gibberish.

    No harm, no foul.

    --
    BT
     
    Bill Turner, Feb 9, 2005
    #14
  15. Stan Brown

    TheSNakE Guest

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > Bill Turner wrote:
    >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 01:26:11 -0500, Stan Brown
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no longer
    >>> a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should not
    >>> be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an
    >>> executable.

    >> ___________________________________________________________
    >>
    >> First I've heard of this. What's your source of information?

    >
    > Most casual users still have "hide file extensions" enabled (which
    > is
    > the default in Windows, stupidly enough). Also, I believe it's easy
    > to manipulate what Outlook Express shows for an extension, even if
    > it's not the real extension. In this particular case, though the
    > extension said it was a .txt file, it most definitely was not a
    > simple ascii text file. It's either a binary file or an encoded
    > file. I don't know what it is precisely, and I'm not about to find
    > out. ;)


    it is a harmless txt file. i cut and pasted it below.

    I have a DVD of "Ray." When I play it the menu gives a choice of
    "Extended Play" versus "Theatre Presentation." I decided that I would
    backup the "Theatre Presentation" version, but I had trouble deciding
    just what to do and how to do it. Here's what I did and what I found:

    When I used DVD Decrypter to rip the DVD entitled "Ray," here's what I
    got:

    Name Type Size Date
    E:\Ray DVD
    VIDEO_TS.BUP .BUP file 22,528 2/6/05
    VIDEO_TS.IFO .IFO file 22,528 2/6/05
    VIDEO_TS.VOB VOB File 1,591,296 2/6/05
    VTS_01_0.BUP .BUP file 122,880 2/6/05
    VTS_01_0.IFO .IFO file 122,880 2/6/05
    VTS_01_0.VOB VOB File 126,855,168 2/6/05
    VTS_01_1.VOB VOB File 1,073,319,936 2/6/05
    VTS_01_2.VOB VOB File 1,073,391,616 2/6/05
    VTS_01_3.VOB VOB File 1,073,526,784 2/6/05
    VTS_01_4.VOB VOB File 1,073,473,536 2/6/05
    VTS_01_5.VOB VOB File 1,072,982,016 2/6/05
    VTS_01_6.VOB VOB File 1,073,256,448 2/6/05
    VTS_01_7.VOB VOB File 850,927,616 2/6/05
    VTS_02_0.BUP .BUP file 34,816 2/6/05
    VTS_02_0.IFO .IFO file 34,816 2/6/05
    Files: 15 Folders: 0 Total size: 7,419,684,864

    I then used DVD Shrink to look at the above files. It showed that the
    "main movie" contained Title 1 and Title 2 which were the same size
    (each is 6,953 MB and runs for 2:32:18).

    When I used DVD Shrink to burn the file called Title 1, I got a DVD
    and these files:

    Name Type Size Date
    D:\Ray Title 1
    VIDEO_TS.BUP .BUP file 6,144 2/6/05
    VIDEO_TS.IFO .IFO file 6,144 2/6/05
    VTS_01_0.BUP .BUP file 86,016 2/6/05
    VTS_01_0.IFO .IFO file 86,016 2/6/05
    VTS_01_1.VOB VOB File 1,073,739,776 2/6/05
    VTS_01_2.VOB VOB File 1,073,739,776 2/6/05
    VTS_01_3.VOB VOB File 1,073,739,776 2/6/05
    VTS_01_4.VOB VOB File 1,073,739,776 2/6/05
    VTS_01_5.VOB VOB File 385,699,840 2/6/05
    Files: 9 Folders: 0 Total size: 4,680,843,264

    When I used DVD Shrink to burn the file called Title 2, I got a DVD
    and these files:

    Name Type Size Date
    D:\Ray Title 2
    VIDEO_TS.BUP .BUP file 6,144 2/6/05
    VIDEO_TS.IFO .IFO file 6,144 2/6/05
    VTS_01_0.BUP .BUP file 86,016 2/6/05
    VTS_01_0.IFO .IFO file 86,016 2/6/05
    VTS_01_1.VOB VOB File 1,073,739,776 2/6/05
    VTS_01_2.VOB VOB File 1,073,739,776 2/6/05
    VTS_01_3.VOB VOB File 1,073,739,776 2/6/05
    VTS_01_4.VOB VOB File 1,073,739,776 2/6/05
    VTS_01_5.VOB VOB File 385,697,792 2/6/05
    Files: 9 Folders: 0 Total size: 4,680,841,216

    When I play the DVDs that were created during the above backups, the
    one from Title 1 stutters, pauses and hangs up, but the one from Title
    2 seems to play OK. What's happening?
     
    TheSNakE, Feb 9, 2005
    #15
  16. Stan Brown

    Mike Kohary Guest

    TheSNakE wrote:
    > Mike Kohary wrote:
    >> Bill Turner wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 01:26:11 -0500, Stan Brown
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no longer
    >>>> a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should not
    >>>> be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an
    >>>> executable.
    >>> ___________________________________________________________
    >>>
    >>> First I've heard of this. What's your source of information?

    >>
    >> Most casual users still have "hide file extensions" enabled (which
    >> is
    >> the default in Windows, stupidly enough). Also, I believe it's easy
    >> to manipulate what Outlook Express shows for an extension, even if
    >> it's not the real extension. In this particular case, though the
    >> extension said it was a .txt file, it most definitely was not a
    >> simple ascii text file. It's either a binary file or an encoded
    >> file. I don't know what it is precisely, and I'm not about to find
    >> out. ;)

    >
    > it is a harmless txt file. i cut and pasted it below.


    So it was encoded. Why the **** was it posted as an attachment? Why not
    just post the fucking question? ****. ;)

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Mike Kohary, Feb 9, 2005
    #16
  17. Stan Brown

    Bill Turner Guest

    On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 22:35:06 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <> wrote
    >
    >So it was encoded. Why the **** was it posted as an attachment? Why not
    >just post the fucking question? ****. ;)

    ___________________________________________________________

    Learn a new word, Mike. Your immaturity is showing.

    --
    BT
     
    Bill Turner, Feb 9, 2005
    #17
  18. Stan Brown

    jack Guest

    Mike Kohary <> wrote:
    <snip>

    :: it is a harmless txt file. i cut and pasted it below.
    :
    : So it was encoded. Why the **** was it posted as an attachment?
    : Why not just post the fucking question? ****. ;)

    Heh heh, fuckin-A! LOL.

    J.
     
    jack, Feb 9, 2005
    #18
  19. Stan Brown

    TheSNakE Guest

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > TheSNakE wrote:
    >> Mike Kohary wrote:
    >>> Bill Turner wrote:
    >>>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 01:26:11 -0500, Stan Brown
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Precisely. In the Windows world, the extension ".txt" is no
    >>>>> longer
    >>>>> a guarantee that the binary file -- which in any event should
    >>>>> not
    >>>>> be posted to a non-binaies group like a.v.d -- isn't an
    >>>>> executable.
    >>>> ___________________________________________________________
    >>>>
    >>>> First I've heard of this. What's your source of information?
    >>>
    >>> Most casual users still have "hide file extensions" enabled (which
    >>> is
    >>> the default in Windows, stupidly enough). Also, I believe it's
    >>> easy
    >>> to manipulate what Outlook Express shows for an extension, even if
    >>> it's not the real extension. In this particular case, though the
    >>> extension said it was a .txt file, it most definitely was not a
    >>> simple ascii text file. It's either a binary file or an encoded
    >>> file. I don't know what it is precisely, and I'm not about to
    >>> find
    >>> out. ;)

    >>
    >> it is a harmless txt file. i cut and pasted it below.

    >
    > So it was encoded. Why the **** was it posted as an attachment?
    > Why
    > not just post the fucking question? ****. ;)


    Probably a newbie. we've all been there:)
     
    TheSNakE, Feb 9, 2005
    #19
  20. Stan Brown

    TheSNakE Guest

    jack wrote:
    > Mike Kohary <> wrote:
    > <snip>
    >
    >>> it is a harmless txt file. i cut and pasted it below.

    >>
    >> So it was encoded. Why the **** was it posted as an attachment?
    >> Why not just post the fucking question? ****. ;)

    >
    > Heh heh, fuckin-A! LOL.
    >

    we must be very bored:)
     
    TheSNakE, Feb 9, 2005
    #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. DEFIANT1

    Ripping DVDs

    DEFIANT1, May 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    480
  2. Flossie

    Re: ripping DVDs

    Flossie, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,481
    DVDHelp.us
    Sep 2, 2003
  3. DVDHelp.us

    Re: ripping DVDs

    DVDHelp.us, Sep 2, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    480
    DVDHelp.us
    Sep 2, 2003
  4. Zadkin

    Wrong answer equals to a blank answer or not?

    Zadkin, Jun 23, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    830
    Cerebrus
    Jun 27, 2006
  5. John Dalberg
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,410
    Kraftee
    Jun 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page