MSE

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeff T
  • Start date Start date
No. Why do you ask?? Do you have a rootkit infection by any chance

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
 
Peter Foldes said:
No. Why do you ask?? Do you have a rootkit infection by any chance

--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Click to expand...
No, I don't but my wife did. She's got MSE installed and so do I. She had a
local guy fix it and he installed AVG Free. I think I will too.
 
From: "Jeff T said:
Does MSE protect against rootkit viruses?
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as a "rootkit virus".

Rootkits are trojans and Rootkits do NOT self replicate.

MSE is moderately able to prevent RootKit infections such as TDSS/TDL4, ZeroAccess, Max++,
etc.
 
Just because all "rootkits" are "Trojans", doesn't mean that all "Trojans"
are "rootkits" !!
And by a "rootkit" - I mean any piece of malicious software that utilises,
in particular, a method of stealth that takes advantage of the Windows API,
by interception and alteration of it's output, to avoid detection and
therefore removal by any Anti-Virus measures that are sent against it...
The fact that persistent "rootkit" malware is hidden from the Window's API,
and therefore invisible to other process monitoring software such as
Windows Task Manager, makes them difficult to detect and remove.

Microsoft's "RootKit Revealer" utility is a place to start if you believe
you may have malware that uses "rootkits"...

Download RootkitRevealer.exe :
http://live.sysinternals.com/RootkitRevealer.exe

More info :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit#Installation_and_cloaking

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
 
From: "Tim Meddick said:
Just because all "rootkits" are "Trojans", doesn't mean that all "Trojans" are
"rootkits" !!
Click to expand...

Absolutely! ;-)
And by a "rootkit" - I mean any piece of malicious software that utilises, in
particular, a method of stealth that takes advantage of the Windows API, by interception
and alteration of it's output, to avoid detection and therefore removal by any
Anti-Virus measures that are sent against it... The fact that persistent "rootkit"
malware is hidden from the Window's API, and therefore invisible to other process
monitoring software such as Windows Task Manager, makes them difficult to detect and
remove.

Microsoft's "RootKit Revealer" utility is a place to start if you believe you may have
malware that uses "rootkits"...

Download RootkitRevealer.exe :
http://live.sysinternals.com/RootkitRevealer.exe

More info :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootkit#Installation_and_cloaking
Click to expand...

It's not that good. Its only claim to fame is that it is one of the first utilities.
However its oudated and hasn't been updated in 5 years and isn't good for such threats as
TDL4, Max++ and ZeroAccess.

Gmer, Avast's ASWMBR (which is based on Gmer) and Kaspersky's TDSKiller are suggested
because they won't just reveal their presence but can be used to remove them.

Rootkits are ever evolving and one needs an anti rootkit utility that also eveloves.
Sysinternals RootKit Revealer is not one of them. Even Ad's Root Repeal hasn't been
update for newer threats.
 
I re-read your post that I responded to, and understood what you were
saying a little better.

However, the first time a glanced at it, it gave me the impression that
there was "no such thing as a rootkit" !!?!!!

But, as I said, I know now that was *not* what you were saying. I just
think it gave the wrong impression in a news group that accommodates,
mainly, people with more questions than answers.

I wasn't trying to suggest cutting-edge Antivirus software, but rather, by
downloading the Sysinternals' "Rootkit Revealer" program, that the OP would
be able to have a greater understanding of what exactly it is that makes
for a "rootkit"...

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
 
David said:
From: "Tim Meddick" <[email protected]>
snip

Gmer, Avast's ASWMBR (which is based on Gmer) and Kaspersky's TDSKiller are suggested
because they won't just reveal their presence but can be used to remove them.

Rootkits are ever evolving and one needs an anti rootkit utility that also eveloves.
Sysinternals RootKit Revealer is not one of them. Even Ad's Root Repeal hasn't been
update for newer threats.
Click to expand...

And be absolutely certain to get them from a reputable source.
The last Gmer I got came from a spoofed web site and contained
rootkits.
 
From: "BillW50 said:
Oh man! I can't believe nobody challenged you on this! I also can't believe somebody
like you are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Rootkit - Wikipedia
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Rootkit
Click to expand...

I am NOT pulling the "wool over people's eyes", I state a fact.

RootKits are not viruses. They are trojans and do not self replicate. They aren't
viruses that prepend, append or cavity inject malicious code into other files who may in
turn infect and inject malicious code into other files. They do not use network protocols
like Internet worms to spread from computer to computer over a LAN or WAN or use
constructs like AutoPlay/AutoRun to spread from removeable media such as in the case of
autorun worms.

RootKits are trojans because they require assistance to spread. Most often this is
through Social Engineering or the vulnerability/exlpoitation vector.

The overarching concept of malicious software is malware. Too often it is misconstrued
that the overarching concept of malicious software is that of viruses and is totally
incorrect.

The reality of the malicious software theatre is that there are few viruses Today. The
vast majority of malware are trojans. Malware can be broken down to three major classes.
Viruses, trojans and exploit code. The viruses that we see Today are Virut, Parite and
Ramnit. There is the possibility that a trojan can be infected with a virus such as
Parite like any other "legitimate" file such as in the case of a Zapchast. This means
there is a double payload. That of the trojan and that of the virus. There is also the
possibility that a legitimate file may become "trojanized". That is a given malware may
prepend, append or cavity inject malicious code into a legitimate file. However, unlike a
virus, the file that has become infected can not in turn infect another file and spread
autonomously.

There is nothing in that Wiki that negates what I have written.
 
I am NOT pulling the "wool over people's eyes", I state a fact.

RootKits are not viruses. They are trojans and do not self replicate. They aren't
viruses that prepend, append or cavity inject malicious code into other files who may in
turn infect and inject malicious code into other files. They do not use network protocols
like Internet worms to spread from computer to computer over a LAN or WAN or use
constructs like AutoPlay/AutoRun to spread from removeable media such as in the case of
autorun worms.

RootKits are trojans because they require assistance to spread. Most often this is
through Social Engineering or the vulnerability/exlpoitation vector.

The overarching concept of malicious software is malware. Too often it is misconstrued
that the overarching concept of malicious software is that of viruses and is totally
incorrect.

The reality of the malicious software theatre is that there are few viruses Today. The
vast majority of malware are trojans. Malware can be broken down to three major classes.
Viruses, trojans and exploit code. The viruses that we see Today are Virut, Parite and
Ramnit. There is the possibility that a trojan can be infected with a virus such as
Parite like any other "legitimate" file such as in the case of a Zapchast. This means
there is a double payload. That of the trojan and that of the virus. There is also the
possibility that a legitimate file may become "trojanized". That is a given malware may
prepend, append or cavity inject malicious code into a legitimate file. However, unlike a
virus, the file that has become infected can not in turn infect another file and spread
autonomously.

There is nothing in that Wiki that negates what I have written.
Click to expand...

Good luck here. FWIW, I recently had a very similar discussion with
BillW50 in another group. After several exchanges, I don't think I
made any appreciable progress and had to abandon ship.
 
In
David said:
I am NOT pulling the "wool over people's eyes", I state a fact.

RootKits are not viruses. They are trojans and do not self
replicate. They aren't viruses that prepend, append or cavity inject
malicious code into other files who may in turn infect and inject
malicious code into other files. They do not use network protocols
like Internet worms to spread from computer to computer over a LAN or
WAN or use constructs like AutoPlay/AutoRun to spread from removeable
media such as in the case of autorun worms.
RootKits are trojans because they require assistance to spread. Most
often this is through Social Engineering or the
vulnerability/exlpoitation vector.
Click to expand...

According to Christopher Kruegel (an Associate Professor at University
of California) appears to disagree with you. As "Rootkits differ from
viruses and worms in that they do not usually self-replicate." What you
are saying is they do not self-replicate. While Professor Kruegel is
saying that isn't always the case.

Challenge 2: General Windows Security
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~chris/teaching/cs290/projects/proj2.html

Trojan Rootkit Tmphider for example can self-replicate.

Delete Trojan Rootkit Tmphider Permanently (Removal Guide) |
onlinepcsavior
http://www.onlinepcsavior.com/delete-trojan-rootkit-tmphider-permanently-removal-guide/
The overarching concept of malicious software is malware. Too often
it is misconstrued that the overarching concept of malicious software
is that of viruses and is totally incorrect.
Click to expand...

That part is true. But most non-experts lump viruses, worms, Trojan
horses, adware, rootkits and many other nasty infections as all of the
same thing. Which isn't surprising, since regardless of the type, each
of them offer their own unique security threat, and they should be
avoided at all costs.

But on the flipside, rootkits can carry payloads with them. Which could
contain viruses, worms, Trojan horses, and/or adware. Thus some rootkits
can also be viruses. And some viruses can be rootkits.

And I am not one to be picky about the misuse of technical terms. As the
general public does so all of the time. As communication is a method of
giving one's thoughts to somebody else. And when somebody misuses
technical terms, I still know what they mean anyway. So being picky is
just trying to be argumentative.

If those who wishes to be picky anyway, I ask why just fix one and not
everything? For example the phrases the sun rises and the sun sets is
technically incorrect. As the sun isn't moving at all, but the Earth is
instead.
The reality of the malicious software theatre is that there are few
viruses Today. The vast majority of malware are trojans. Malware
can be broken down to three major classes. Viruses, trojans and
exploit code. The viruses that we see Today are Virut, Parite and
Ramnit. There is the possibility that a trojan can be infected with
a virus such as Parite like any other "legitimate" file such as in
the case of a Zapchast. This means there is a double payload. That
of the trojan and that of the virus. There is also the possibility
that a legitimate file may become "trojanized". That is a given
malware may prepend, append or cavity inject malicious code into a
legitimate file. However, unlike a virus, the file that has become
infected can not in turn infect another file and spread autonomously.

There is nothing in that Wiki that negates what I have written.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. As not all rootkits are Trojans. Wikipedia made this very
clear under the subtitle "Installation and cloaking".

"Rootkits employ a variety of techniques to gain control of a system;
the type of rootkit influences the choice of attack vector. The most
common technique leverages security vulnerabilities to achieve
surreptitious privilege escalation. Another approach is to use a
Trojan..."
 
In
Char said:
Good luck here. FWIW, I recently had a very similar discussion with
BillW50 in another group. After several exchanges, I don't think I
made any appreciable progress and had to abandon ship.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between David and yourself. As David appears
to be able to read, look up URLs, and seems to be able to carry on an
intelligent conversation.
 
From: "BillW50 said:
In

According to Christopher Kruegel (an Associate Professor at University of California)
appears to disagree with you. As "Rootkits differ from viruses and worms in that they do
not usually self-replicate." What you are saying is they do not self-replicate. While
Professor Kruegel is saying that isn't always the case.

Challenge 2: General Windows Security
http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~chris/teaching/cs290/projects/proj2.html

Trojan Rootkit Tmphider for example can self-replicate.

Delete Trojan Rootkit Tmphider Permanently (Removal Guide) | onlinepcsavior
http://www.onlinepcsavior.com/delete-trojan-rootkit-tmphider-permanently-removal-guide/


That part is true. But most non-experts lump viruses, worms, Trojan horses, adware,
rootkits and many other nasty infections as all of the same thing. Which isn't
surprising, since regardless of the type, each of them offer their own unique security
threat, and they should be avoided at all costs.

But on the flipside, rootkits can carry payloads with them. Which could contain viruses,
worms, Trojan horses, and/or adware. Thus some rootkits can also be viruses. And some
viruses can be rootkits.

And I am not one to be picky about the misuse of technical terms. As the general public
does so all of the time. As communication is a method of giving one's thoughts to
somebody else. And when somebody misuses technical terms, I still know what they mean
anyway. So being picky is just trying to be argumentative.

If those who wishes to be picky anyway, I ask why just fix one and not everything? For
example the phrases the sun rises and the sun sets is technically incorrect. As the sun
isn't moving at all, but the Earth is instead.


Sure there is. As not all rootkits are Trojans. Wikipedia made this very clear under the
subtitle "Installation and cloaking".

"Rootkits employ a variety of techniques to gain control of a system; the type of
rootkit influences the choice of attack vector. The most common technique leverages
security vulnerabilities to achieve surreptitious privilege escalation. Another approach
is to use a Trojan..."
Click to expand...

That is incorrect. Installation and cloaking does not indicate the ability of autonomous
spreading. The cloaking aspect aspect is purely the concept of self preservation through
the ability to hide within the OS is such a way as to mask its presence.

The www.onlinepcsavior.com article is incorrect. The name "Rootkit Tmphider " means it is
a trojan and not a virus or it may have been name W32/Tmphider or W64/Tmphider indicating
it is a virus using Win32 or Win64 bit virus coding. Instead it specifically is called a
trojan. The site www.onlinepcsavior.com is just a GoDaddy site that was created just a
little over 1 year ago and is not the library or encyclopedia of an anti virus vendor who
has actually assayed the malware. Many of these so called removal guides have false
information because they usually have an agenda. Often they are used by affiliates to get
you to download their software when their instructions fail to help remove the malware.
In the case of www.onlinepcsavior.com its agenda is to sell you a support contract. Such
a Google search also brings up...
http://www.pcthreat.com/parasitebyid-10041en.html whose characteristics list does not
state that it self replicates. However it too is a GoDaddy site and it too has an agenda
because it is an Enigma affiliate and wants you to download SpyHunter.

The problem with Google Searches is one can obtain misinformation as well as true
information as there is nothing to negate faux results. If one is to do research on
malware one must search through anti malware vendor encyclopedias or libraries to get real
information on the malware. However even that can be limited because there are so many
different kinds of malware that vendors just can't do a writeup on every one of them.
Often they will be limited to "hot button subject" malware or malware of a particular
family. Just because it has a downloader aspect doesn't make it a virus it just means the
trojan will donload either components of this malware or other tye of malware and even if
that other typoe of malware may be a virus that doesn't make the downloader a virus.

As for Christopher Kruegel writing "Rootkits differ from viruses and worms in that they
do not usually self-replicate."
He is hedging his bets by using a qualifying word "usually" but that doesn't mean by the
use of this word that Rootkits are viruses. For all intents and puposes, rootkits do not
employ viral capabilities. Once a rootkit is installed on a host, that rootkit stays on
that host and will not spread to another computer.

I am very glad you can use Google to research the subject matter but you also must
understand the underlying concepts and constructs. I have spent more than 20 years doing
just that, studying the underlying concepts and constructs of malware.
 
In
David said:
That is incorrect. Installation and cloaking does not indicate the
ability of autonomous spreading. The cloaking aspect aspect is
purely the concept of self preservation through the ability to hide
within the OS is such a way as to mask its presence.
The www.onlinepcsavior.com article is incorrect. The name "Rootkit
Tmphider " means it is a trojan and not a virus or it may have been
name W32/Tmphider or W64/Tmphider indicating it is a virus using
Win32 or Win64 bit virus coding. Instead it specifically is called a
trojan. The site www.onlinepcsavior.com is just a GoDaddy site that
was created just a little over 1 year ago and is not the library or
encyclopedia of an anti virus vendor who has actually assayed the
malware. Many of these so called removal guides have false
information because they usually have an agenda. Often they are used
by affiliates to get you to download their software when their
instructions fail to help remove the malware. In the case of
www.onlinepcsavior.com its agenda is to sell you a support contract.
Such a Google search also brings up...
http://www.pcthreat.com/parasitebyid-10041en.html whose
characteristics list does not state that it self replicates. However
it too is a GoDaddy site and it too has an agenda because it is an
Enigma affiliate and wants you to download SpyHunter.
The problem with Google Searches is one can obtain misinformation as
well as true information as there is nothing to negate faux results.
If one is to do research on malware one must search through anti
malware vendor encyclopedias or libraries to get real information on
the malware. However even that can be limited because there are so
many different kinds of malware that vendors just can't do a writeup
on every one of them. Often they will be limited to "hot button
subject" malware or malware of a particular family. Just because it
has a downloader aspect doesn't make it a virus it just means the
trojan will donload either components of this malware or other tye of
malware and even if that other typoe of malware may be a virus that
doesn't make the downloader a virus.
As for Christopher Kruegel writing "Rootkits differ from viruses and
worms in that they do not usually self-replicate."
He is hedging his bets by using a qualifying word "usually" but that
doesn't mean by the use of this word that Rootkits are viruses. For
all intents and puposes, rootkits do not employ viral capabilities.
Once a rootkit is installed on a host, that rootkit stays on that
host and will not spread to another computer.
I am very glad you can use Google to research the subject matter but
you also must understand the underlying concepts and constructs. I
have spent more than 20 years doing just that, studying the
underlying concepts and constructs of malware.
Click to expand...

Well I've been a hardware engineer since the 70's. And while I am not a
programmer per se, I often had to write my own programs to test the
hardware I created. Of course as a hobby, I also created my own
computers from the individual component level. So I am a well seasoned
computer aficionado for over 35 years now. And I do know a thing or two
about this subject.

Okay about onlinepcsavior.com, so that was a bad example. But the rest
of it was not. And you are confusing that all rootkits are Trojans. This
isn't necessarily so at all. As you seem to believe that rootkits can
only be installed through "social engineering convinces a user that the
rootkit is beneficial." (aka Trojan). Sure that is just one choice of
attack vector. But others include the attacker "either by exploiting a
known vulnerability or by obtaining a password by cracking the
encryption." And according to:

Malware - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware

"The best-known types of malware, viruses and worms, are known for the
manner in which they spread, rather than any other particular behavior.
The term computer virus is used for a program that has infected some
executable software and, when run, causes the virus to spread to other
executables. Viruses may also contain a payload that performs other
actions, often malicious. On the other hand, a worm is a program that
actively transmits itself over a network to infect other computers. It
too may carry a payload.
These definitions lead to the observation that a virus requires user
intervention to spread, whereas a worm spreads itself automatically.
Using this distinction, infections transmitted by email or Microsoft
Word documents, which rely on the recipient opening a file or email to
infect the system, would be classified as viruses rather than worms.
Some writers in the trade and popular press misunderstand this
distinction and use the terms interchangeably."

So can viruses and worms carry a rootkit as a payload? You bet they can!
One common way for Linux and Windows systems to install a rootkit is
through buffer overruns from a virus or a worm.

~~~~~~~~~~ Start ~~~~~~~~~~

The Virus Problem
Even though a rootkit is not a virus, the techniques used by a rootkit
can easily be employed by a virus. When a rootkit is combined with a
virus, a very dangerous technology is born.

What a Rootkit Is Not | The Basics of Rootkits: Leave No Trace |
InformIT
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=408884&seqNum=6

~~~~~~~~~~ End ~~~~~~~~~~

Technically speaking, rootkits are not malicious at all. Although their
payloads can be very malicious. As "rootkit" means "root" plus "kit".
The root part means root level or administrator level. And the kit part
means software tool. So a rootkit is nothing more than an
administrator's software tool.

"Rootkit refers to techniques and tools used to cloak remote-controlled
trojans, keyloggers, DDoS zombies, spam 'bots, adware, viruses, and
other malicious programs, evading detection by security scanners,
operating system utilities, and end users. Rootkits such as Hacker
Defender and FU are not themselves malicious. They are simply a means to
an end. Malware developers use rootkits to install 'stealth' processes,
files, registry keys, accounts, services, and device drivers, without
the user's knowledge or consent. Rootkits not only inhibit discovery;
they can also make unwanted programs difficult or impossible to remove."

WatchGuard LiveSecurity
http://www.corecom.com/external/livesecurity/rootkits101.htm
 
At the end of the day, because it's not just the technocrats that use
computers, but all the common folk - that, by the very nature of the way
language develops, the meaning of the word "Virus" is always going to mean
an unwanted (unauthorised) file that, on execution, manages to disrupt the
normal working of our PC - in short, what we would call ; "malware" as an
"umbrella" term to describe all such harmful code.

But, despite the I.T. communities' every effort to make people use the
correct term to describe types of "malware", most people would name any
unwanted software that causes noticeable disruption as a "virus" - no
matter weather it was really a virus, rootkit, "hijackware" or other PUP
(Potentially Unwanted Software)....

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

P.S. - I think the only reason that Mr Lipman got such a strong reaction,
was that he used the phrase "There is no such thing as a "rootkit virus"
where most people (including myself), without too much by way of thinking,
thought on the face of it that he was saying : "There is no such thing as a
"rootkit"." !! But he was not, I think, saying that "rootkits" don't
exist, but that a rootkit is just *one* way that viruses employ to reach
their destructive goal, that other types of malware use rootkits and that
rootkits aren't automatically a bad thing, but are legitimately employed by
other forms of genuine software (some Anti-Virus software use rootkits as
protection against a Virus attack displacing the AV software itself ).
 
At the end of the day, because it's not just the technocrats that use
computers, but all the common folk - that, by the very nature of the way
language develops, the meaning of the word "Virus" is always going to mean
an unwanted (unauthorised) file that, on execution, manages to disrupt the
normal working of our PC - in short, what we would call ; "malware" as an
"umbrella" term to describe all such harmful code.
Click to expand...

In a similar vein, every electrical problem is a "short". Never mind
the fact that most electrical problems are not shorts.
 
Your comments started off in a way that made me think there was a human
being behind the writing of them - then they [seemed to] turned typically
cynical.....

Calling someone like me "New Age" - well, even you would probably laugh if
you actually knew me at all, or even if you actually just saw me.

I'm a 50-year-old, and the phrase "New Age", to my memory, at least, was
coined around the late 1980s and grew out of the "house generation"!!

....And I won't even go into the idea of "commentators" and "politicians" -
I am not now, nor ever was, either!! For you to have extrapolated these
erroneous conclusions as to my character from the mere start of a phrase ;
"At the end of the day..." then I think you are most prejudicial in your
assessment of people.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
 
| However, I sure am getting tired of that "... at the end of the day ..."
new
| age phrase,

Funny how people pick up phrases. I kind of like "at
the end of the day". It has a slightly antique tinge.
What I find more problematic is the words and phrases
that get passed around as a way to express one's
cultural currency, like so many trite, best-seller
coffee table books. "That being said" came out of
nowhere and was suddenly everywhere. (I miss "nevertheless"
and "however".) The worshippers of Bill Gates are fond
of "super". Steve Jobs's disciples like "amazing". (Especially
when talking about Steve Jobs.) Everyone who purports
to be some sort of expert on TV is required to say
"absolutely" at least as often as they say "yes", lest they
appear to be uncertain. "DNA" has become a recent problem.
I read a quote the other day from Microsoft:

"Productivity is in our DNA"

One would expect these people to have rudimentary
scientific literacy. Computer programming is sort of
scientific, after all. But they can't help themselves.
DNA is the metaphor du jour. Unfortunately, I think these
fashioable words serve as a way to avoid actually
thinking about what one is saying -- like teenagers
trading phrases for the sole purpose of fitting in.

But look on the bright side. If you say "folder" in a
Linux group then....well... just don't. It's a directory.
Compared to the Aspergers Linuxians and the crazed,
Evangelical AppleSeeds, Windows people are downright
sane. Absolutely.
 
Your comments [quoted below] are quite unbelievable!...

You ask ; "What "conclusions" did I extrapolate?"

But then you go on to state, yet *again* that ; "My only comment was I
hated that new age phrase, "at the end of the day"" and then "...dumbass
politicians overusing it because they can't think of anything more
intelligent to say, and they think it sounds cute"

Do you not see that by equating those who use the term ; "at the end of the
day" together with the description ; "dumbass politicians overusing it
because they can't think of anything more intelligent to say, and they
think it sounds cute" gives the implication that the person you are
talking to [me] is also "dumbass" and unable to "think of anything more
intelligent to say" ?!!

No, I suppose you wouldn't....

But then again, if You didn't think you were really calling me all that
stuff, I suppose by the same yard-stick, I can get away with *not* calling
you a "hypercritical manipulator of semantics" !!? No?

But, then again, I wouldn't do that!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
 
Back
Top