| Windows XP Mystery [message #417904] |
Thu, 24 November 2022 14:20  |
|
|
Originally posted by: gareth evans
Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
When I switched it on at the weekend got a warning that the CMOS
battery was low, so had to F2 to restore defaults.
Now, neither FireFox nor Internet Explorer will display any websites,
complaining that any and every web site has an erroneous certificate.
However, my other XP laptop runs Firefox with no difficulty.
The Asus is dual boot and even Linux will not start up.
Any clues anybody?
TIA
-----ooooo-----
Thanks for the suggestions.
Results of investigations ...
The CMOS battery in the Asus is a rechargeable type and so
leaving the computer recharging seems to have resolved that
difficulty. The computer had been unused for several weeks
leading to discharge of the battery.
The lack of display of websites was because the system time
had reverted back to the date of creation May 2005. Updating
the system time brought the Internet back again.
Whoever thought it to be a good idea to attach a
date-dependant certificate to a web site, perhaps
one of those things that although it is possible to do
does not make it a good thing to do?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417909 is a reply to message #417904] |
Thu, 24 November 2022 18:04  |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>
> When I switched it on at the weekend got a warning that the CMOS
> battery was low, so had to F2 to restore defaults.
>
> Now, neither FireFox nor Internet Explorer will display any websites,
> complaining that any and every web site has an erroneous certificate.
>
> However, my other XP laptop runs Firefox with no difficulty.
>
> The Asus is dual boot and even Linux will not start up.
>
> Any clues anybody?
>
> TIA
>
> -----ooooo-----
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> Results of investigations ...
>
> The CMOS battery in the Asus is a rechargeable type and so
> leaving the computer recharging seems to have resolved that
> difficulty. The computer had been unused for several weeks
> leading to discharge of the battery.
>
> The lack of display of websites was because the system time
> had reverted back to the date of creation May 2005. Updating
> the system time brought the Internet back again.
>
> Whoever thought it to be a good idea to attach a
> date-dependant certificate to a web site, perhaps
> one of those things that although it is possible to do
> does not make it a good thing to do?
>
Are there browsers that don’t look at certificates? Sometimes they’re just
more trouble than they’re worth. Chrome, I think, used to let me override
and go to the site anyway, but I think that ended.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417912 is a reply to message #417909] |
Fri, 25 November 2022 04:20 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Parodper
O 25/11/22 ás 00:04, Peter Flass escribiu:
> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Whoever thought it to be a good idea to attach a
>> date-dependant certificate to a web site, perhaps
>> one of those things that although it is possible to do
>> does not make it a good thing to do?
>>
>
> Are there browsers that don’t look at certificates? Sometimes they’re just
> more trouble than they’re worth. Chrome, I think, used to let me override
> and go to the site anyway, but I think that ended.
>
All browsers should look at certificates if using HTTPS. Unfortunately
some pages don't want to serve HTTP and automatically redirect to HTTPS.
AFAIK Firefox let's you ignore any certificate-related warnings, unless
that site has HSTS enabled.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417936 is a reply to message #417904] |
Sun, 27 November 2022 08:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Roland Perry
In message <tlog5g$ncga$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:13 on Thu, 24 Nov
2022, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> remarked:
> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>
> When I switched it on at the weekend got a warning that the CMOS
> battery was low, so had to F2 to restore defaults.
>
> Now, neither FireFox nor Internet Explorer will display any websites,
> complaining that any and every web site has an erroneous certificate.
>
> However, my other XP laptop runs Firefox with no difficulty.
>
> The Asus is dual boot and even Linux will not start up.
>
> Any clues anybody?
>
> TIA
>
> -----ooooo-----
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> Results of investigations ...
>
> The CMOS battery in the Asus is a rechargeable type and so
> leaving the computer recharging seems to have resolved that
> difficulty. The computer had been unused for several weeks
> leading to discharge of the battery.
>
> The lack of display of websites was because the system time
> had reverted back to the date of creation May 2005. Updating
> the system time brought the Internet back again.
>
> Whoever thought it to be a good idea to attach a
> date-dependant certificate to a web site, perhaps
> one of those things that although it is possible to do
> does not make it a good thing to do?
Two issues there
- are certificates a good idea (answer: most people agree it is, because
it helps reduce certain kinds of fraud)
- should they include validity dates (answer: most people agree it is,
because that's just good housekeeping).
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417938 is a reply to message #417936] |
Sun, 27 November 2022 15:54 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <tlog5g$ncga$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:13 on Thu, 24 Nov
> 2022, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> remarked:
>> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>>
>> When I switched it on at the weekend got a warning that the CMOS
>> battery was low, so had to F2 to restore defaults.
>>
>> Now, neither FireFox nor Internet Explorer will display any websites,
>> complaining that any and every web site has an erroneous certificate.
>>
>> However, my other XP laptop runs Firefox with no difficulty.
>>
>> The Asus is dual boot and even Linux will not start up.
>>
>> Any clues anybody?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> -----ooooo-----
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>>
>> Results of investigations ...
>>
>> The CMOS battery in the Asus is a rechargeable type and so
>> leaving the computer recharging seems to have resolved that
>> difficulty. The computer had been unused for several weeks
>> leading to discharge of the battery.
>>
>> The lack of display of websites was because the system time
>> had reverted back to the date of creation May 2005. Updating
>> the system time brought the Internet back again.
>>
>> Whoever thought it to be a good idea to attach a
>> date-dependant certificate to a web site, perhaps
>> one of those things that although it is possible to do
>> does not make it a good thing to do?
>
> Two issues there
>
> - are certificates a good idea (answer: most people agree it is, because
> it helps reduce certain kinds of fraud)
>
> - should they include validity dates (answer: most people agree it is,
> because that's just good housekeeping).
Third thing: Should it not ultimately be up to the user whether or not to
trust a web site, or is it up to the browser to be a nanny and override the
user’s wishes?
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417939 is a reply to message #417904] |
Sun, 27 November 2022 16:01 |
Louis Krupp
Messages: 92
Registered: August 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 11/24/2022 12:20 PM, gareth evans wrote:
> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>
> When I switched it on at the weekend got a warning that the CMOS
> battery was low, so had to F2 to restore defaults.
>
> Now, neither FireFox nor Internet Explorer will display any websites,
> complaining that any and every web site has an erroneous certificate.
>
> However, my other XP laptop runs Firefox with no difficulty.
>
> The Asus is dual boot and even Linux will not start up.
>
> Any clues anybody?
>
> TIA
>
> -----ooooo-----
>
> Thanks for the suggestions.
>
> Results of investigations ...
>
> The CMOS battery in the Asus is a rechargeable type and so
> leaving the computer recharging seems to have resolved that
> difficulty. The computer had been unused for several weeks
> leading to discharge of the battery.
>
> The lack of display of websites was because the system time
> had reverted back to the date of creation May 2005. Updating
> the system time brought the Internet back again.
>
> Whoever thought it to be a good idea to attach a
> date-dependant certificate to a web site, perhaps
> one of those things that although it is possible to do
> does not make it a good thing to do?
Possibly stupid question: Could you set up an NTP client that would
retrieve the network time at boot, compare it to the hardware clock, and
either tell you something's wrong or go ahead and reset the hardware clock?
Then you wouldn't have to worry about certificates and time travel.
Louis
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417940 is a reply to message #417938] |
Sun, 27 November 2022 16:22 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tlog5g$ncga$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:13 on Thu, 24 Nov
>> 2022, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>> Two issues there
>>
>> - are certificates a good idea (answer: most people agree it is, because
>> it helps reduce certain kinds of fraud)
It's not so much about fraud, is it is about 'trust'. The entire concept
of an X.509 certificate and the associated PKI is to establish trust. Note
that 'fraud' can be commited even by a 'trusted' website.
Trusted in the context of a X.509 certificate only means that the website
name (e.g. www.website.net) which produces the certificate when connected
to by a browser matches the the name encoded in the digitally signed[*] certificate.
It doesn't imply any trust in the website itself.
[*] Signed by a higher authority (i.e. another certificate). The root of
trust are the root certificates built-into the browser. Those have been
compromised in the past.
>>
>> - should they include validity dates (answer: most people agree it is,
>> because that's just good housekeeping).
>
> Third thing: Should it not ultimately be up to the user whether or not to
> trust a web site, or is it up to the browser to be a nanny and override the
> user’s wishes?
Fourth thing: The certificates must be revokable in real-time. That means
the browser must check for revocation (using OCSP) before trusting the
certificate each time it is used.
As for the third thing, I think it should be difficult for a user to override
a bad or missing certificate. For some class of users, it should likely
be made impossible to override a bad, out of date or revoked certificate.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417942 is a reply to message #417940] |
Sun, 27 November 2022 19:20 |
D.J.
Messages: 821
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 21:22:28 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tlog5g$ncga$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:13 on Thu, 24 Nov
>>> 2022, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>
>>> Two issues there
>>>
>>> - are certificates a good idea (answer: most people agree it is, because
>>> it helps reduce certain kinds of fraud)
>
> It's not so much about fraud, is it is about 'trust'. The entire concept
> of an X.509 certificate and the associated PKI is to establish trust. Note
> that 'fraud' can be commited even by a 'trusted' website.
>
> Trusted in the context of a X.509 certificate only means that the website
> name (e.g. www.website.net) which produces the certificate when connected
> to by a browser matches the the name encoded in the digitally signed[*] certificate.
>
> It doesn't imply any trust in the website itself.
>
> [*] Signed by a higher authority (i.e. another certificate). The root of
> trust are the root certificates built-into the browser. Those have been
> compromised in the past.
>
>>>
>>> - should they include validity dates (answer: most people agree it is,
>>> because that's just good housekeeping).
>>
>> Third thing: Should it not ultimately be up to the user whether or not to
>> trust a web site, or is it up to the browser to be a nanny and override the
>> userâs wishes?
>
> Fourth thing: The certificates must be revokable in real-time. That means
> the browser must check for revocation (using OCSP) before trusting the
> certificate each time it is used.
>
> As for the third thing, I think it should be difficult for a user to override
> a bad or missing certificate. For some class of users, it should likely
> be made impossible to override a bad, out of date or revoked certificate.
If my domain hasn't updated a site certificate on one of my websites,
I can log in and click on update, and the certificate updates.
--
Jim
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417949 is a reply to message #417938] |
Mon, 28 November 2022 08:39 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Roland Perry
In message
<1646905382.691275093.996204.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september
..org>, at 13:54:51 on Sun, 27 Nov 2022, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> remarked:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tlog5g$ncga$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:13 on Thu, 24 Nov
>> 2022, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>>>
>>> When I switched it on at the weekend got a warning that the CMOS
>>> battery was low, so had to F2 to restore defaults.
>>>
>>> Now, neither FireFox nor Internet Explorer will display any websites,
>>> complaining that any and every web site has an erroneous certificate.
>>>
>>> However, my other XP laptop runs Firefox with no difficulty.
>>>
>>> The Asus is dual boot and even Linux will not start up.
>>>
>>> Any clues anybody?
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> -----ooooo-----
>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>>>
>>> Results of investigations ...
>>>
>>> The CMOS battery in the Asus is a rechargeable type and so
>>> leaving the computer recharging seems to have resolved that
>>> difficulty. The computer had been unused for several weeks
>>> leading to discharge of the battery.
>>>
>>> The lack of display of websites was because the system time
>>> had reverted back to the date of creation May 2005. Updating
>>> the system time brought the Internet back again.
>>>
>>> Whoever thought it to be a good idea to attach a
>>> date-dependant certificate to a web site, perhaps
>>> one of those things that although it is possible to do
>>> does not make it a good thing to do?
>>
>> Two issues there
>>
>> - are certificates a good idea (answer: most people agree it is, because
>> it helps reduce certain kinds of fraud)
>>
>> - should they include validity dates (answer: most people agree it is,
>> because that's just good housekeeping).
>
> Third thing: Should it not ultimately be up to the user whether or not to
> trust a web site, or is it up to the browser to be a nanny and override the
> user’s wishes?
Most browsers allow the user to over-ride the advice.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417950 is a reply to message #417940] |
Mon, 28 November 2022 08:43 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Roland Perry
In message <oyQgL.319864$Mlk.287431@fx17.iad>, at 21:22:28 on Sun, 27
Nov 2022, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> remarked:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tlog5g$ncga$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:13 on Thu, 24 Nov
>>> 2022, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>>> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>
>>> Two issues there
>>>
>>> - are certificates a good idea (answer: most people agree it is, because
>>> it helps reduce certain kinds of fraud)
>
> It's not so much about fraud, is it is about 'trust'. The entire concept
> of an X.509 certificate and the associated PKI is to establish trust. Note
> that 'fraud' can be commited even by a 'trusted' website.
That's a separate layer, and one which I have often raised with those
who issue guidance claiming that such as the padlock-symbol means a site
is run by good guys. But it's massive hill to climb when educating the
public.
Similarly, much the same people advocating fiercely for virus checkers
and updating software, but neither of those will help prevent the Rolex
you bought on eBay turning out to be a fake.
> Trusted in the context of a X.509 certificate only means that the website
> name (e.g. www.website.net) which produces the certificate when connected
> to by a browser matches the the name encoded in the digitally signed[*]
> certificate.
>
> It doesn't imply any trust in the website itself.
>
> [*] Signed by a higher authority (i.e. another certificate). The root of
> trust are the root certificates built-into the browser. Those have been
> compromised in the past.
>
>>>
>>> - should they include validity dates (answer: most people agree it is,
>>> because that's just good housekeeping).
>>
>> Third thing: Should it not ultimately be up to the user whether or not to
>> trust a web site, or is it up to the browser to be a nanny and override the
>> user’s wishes?
>
> Fourth thing: The certificates must be revokable in real-time. That means
> the browser must check for revocation (using OCSP) before trusting the
> certificate each time it is used.
>
> As for the third thing, I think it should be difficult for a user to override
> a bad or missing certificate. For some class of users, it should likely
> be made impossible to override a bad, out of date or revoked certificate.
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417951 is a reply to message #417939] |
Mon, 28 November 2022 08:46 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Roland Perry
In message <9fQgL.31329$tc3d.28951@fx48.iad>, at 14:01:57 on Sun, 27 Nov
2022, Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> remarked:
> On 11/24/2022 12:20 PM, gareth evans wrote:
>> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>>
>> When I switched it on at the weekend got a warning that the CMOS
>> battery was low, so had to F2 to restore defaults.
>>
>> Now, neither FireFox nor Internet Explorer will display any websites,
>> complaining that any and every web site has an erroneous certificate.
>>
>> However, my other XP laptop runs Firefox with no difficulty.
>>
>> The Asus is dual boot and even Linux will not start up.
>>
>> Any clues anybody?
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> -----ooooo-----
>>
>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>>
>> Results of investigations ...
>>
>> The CMOS battery in the Asus is a rechargeable type and so
>> leaving the computer recharging seems to have resolved that
>> difficulty. The computer had been unused for several weeks
>> leading to discharge of the battery.
>>
>> The lack of display of websites was because the system time
>> had reverted back to the date of creation May 2005. Updating
>> the system time brought the Internet back again.
>>
>> Whoever thought it to be a good idea to attach a
>> date-dependant certificate to a web site, perhaps
>> one of those things that although it is possible to do
>> does not make it a good thing to do?
>
> Possibly stupid question: Could you set up an NTP client that would
> retrieve the network time at boot, compare it to the hardware clock,
> and either tell you something's wrong or go ahead and reset the
> hardware clock?
>
> Then you wouldn't have to worry about certificates and time travel.
I'm sure there are schemes where the operating system does that.
My Usenet/Email client does it when booted, and then [I have chosen]
once every 12hrs (the interval is an easy-to-find setting).
--
Roland Perry
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417952 is a reply to message #417938] |
Mon, 28 November 2022 09:18 |
|
|
Originally posted by: Carlos E.R.
On 2022-11-27 21:54, Peter Flass wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tlog5g$ncga$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:20:13 on Thu, 24 Nov
>> 2022, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
....
>>> Thanks for the suggestions.
>>>
>>> Results of investigations ...
>>>
>>> The CMOS battery in the Asus is a rechargeable type and so
>>> leaving the computer recharging seems to have resolved that
>>> difficulty. The computer had been unused for several weeks
>>> leading to discharge of the battery.
Be warned that it is possible the battery can no longer retain charge,
specially if it is Ni-Cd type.
>>> The lack of display of websites was because the system time
>>> had reverted back to the date of creation May 2005. Updating
>>> the system time brought the Internet back again.
>>>
>>> Whoever thought it to be a good idea to attach a
>>> date-dependant certificate to a web site, perhaps
>>> one of those things that although it is possible to do
>>> does not make it a good thing to do?
>>
>> Two issues there
>>
>> - are certificates a good idea (answer: most people agree it is, because
>> it helps reduce certain kinds of fraud)
>>
>> - should they include validity dates (answer: most people agree it is,
>> because that's just good housekeeping).
It is not validity date only (after all, the certificate date is in the
future). It is that the computers clocks have be almost synced before it
even looks at the certificates.
>
> Third thing: Should it not ultimately be up to the user whether or not to
> trust a web site, or is it up to the browser to be a nanny and override the
> user’s wishes?
Just use http, not https.
And yes, browsers must make it hard, even impossible, to override a
certificate. Depends on the error type.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417953 is a reply to message #417939] |
Mon, 28 November 2022 09:18 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:01:57 -0700
Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> wrote:
> Possibly stupid question: Could you set up an NTP client that would
> retrieve the network time at boot, compare it to the hardware clock, and
> either tell you something's wrong or go ahead and reset the hardware
> clock?
This client is known as ntpdate (ntpd will also do this and then
keep the clock in sync) - I presume it or an equivalent is available for
Windows XP.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417956 is a reply to message #417950] |
Mon, 28 November 2022 11:24 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-11-28, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> Similarly, much the same people advocating fiercely for virus checkers
> and updating software, but neither of those will help prevent the Rolex
> you bought on eBay turning out to be a fake.
Or that update containing malware. Or whatever that clickbait
you just clicked on did to you.
Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness. :-)
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417957 is a reply to message #417912] |
Mon, 28 November 2022 15:37 |
Jan van den Broek
Messages: 70
Registered: April 2012
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
Fri, 25 Nov 2022 10:20:32 +0100
Parodper <parodper@disroot.org> schrieb:
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
Why?
> --------------mNTfi5DpMcxwjNbIEFSetjsz
> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------R2uruAQiSWobq0TsbNjowKvw";
> protected-headers="v1"
[Schnipp]
--
Jan van den Broek balglaas@xs4all.nl
Entertaining Quakers since 2005
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #417961 is a reply to message #417953] |
Tue, 29 November 2022 07:37 |
|
|
Originally posted by: jtmpreno
On 11/28/2022 6:18 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 14:01:57 -0700
> Louis Krupp <lkrupp@invalid.pssw.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Possibly stupid question: Could you set up an NTP client that would
>> retrieve the network time at boot, compare it to the hardware clock, and
>> either tell you something's wrong or go ahead and reset the hardware
>> clock?
>
> This client is known as ntpdate (ntpd will also do this and then
> keep the clock in sync) - I presume it or an equivalent is available for
> Windows XP.
>
Or you can look up the time yourself at https://time.is/
and set the clock manually.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Windows XP Mystery [message #418316 is a reply to message #417904] |
Fri, 16 December 2022 15:31 |
philo[1][2]
Messages: 110
Registered: November 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 11/24/22 1:20 PM, gareth evans wrote:
> Ancient Asus laptop running Windows XP.
>
> When I switched it on at the weekend got a warning that the CMOS
> battery was low, so had to F2 to restore defaults.
>
> Now, neither FireFox nor Internet Explorer will display any websites,
> complaining that any and every web site has an erroneous certificate.
>
> However, my other XP laptop runs Firefox with no difficulty.
>
> The Asus is dual boot and even Linux will not start up.
>
> Any clues anybody?
>
> TX
You need to set the date
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
