[HN Gopher] I connected Windows XP to the Internet; it was fine
___________________________________________________________________
I connected Windows XP to the Internet; it was fine
A couple months ago I installed XP onto a ThinkPad X120e; being the
first dual-core AMD ThinkPad the hardware is relatively emaciated,
and I wanted something lightweight and productive for it. I used
legacyupdate.net to apply all available important and recommended
updates, as well as some nice-to-haves such as updates to the .NET
infrastructure. I have been using the Supermium browser, which is
an up to date fork of Chromium for older versions of Windows,
including XP. All of this has gone off without a hitch, and the
laptop has been great to me with its current configuration.
Recently in the tech news sphere I have seen articles exclaiming
what a bad idea this is, demonstrating how connecting XP to the
internet for just a few minutes leaves it riddled with viruses.
Decided to run an MBAM scan with updated databases to see for
myself, and it's totally clean. In other news, this thing is a
great little Diablo II machine. I'm maining necro right now.
Author : mouse_
Score : 83 points
Date : 2024-05-30 20:17 UTC (2 days ago)
| chrisjj wrote:
| Well done. YMMV with IP address.
| tredre3 wrote:
| That whole thing is manufactured drama by some youtubers.
|
| I can't say if the infections themselves are real or staged, but
| they clearly and explicitly set the OS up for failure: they give
| it a public internet IP, enable file sharing, RDP, remote
| assistance, then disable the firewall for good measures. No
| modern OS would fare better in those circumstances.
| ranger_danger wrote:
| I disagree, I think most modern OSes would be fine, assuming
| they are up to date and nobody is using secret 0days on you.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| AFAICT there was a single YouTube video that started this[0]
| and they mentioned explicitly several times that this mainly
| works because they put it in "the open internet" as a server.
| Disabling the firewall was the icing on the cake and yet that
| is all sites that reported this[1], no mention about how the
| computer was not behind, well, anything that a desktop in the
| last couple of decades would be (and most likely beyond that, i
| remember around 2002 when i had a modem, i had to visit a web
| page at my ISP to allow me open various ports as many things
| were disabled by default).
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uSVVCmOH5w
|
| [1] https://www.xda-developers.com/connected-windows-xp-
| internet...
| jmgao wrote:
| The firewall was disabled by default in XP until SP2...
| badsectoracula wrote:
| Yes, but in the video it isn't and he explicitly disables
| it. Windows XP even warns about it after he does it.
| josephg wrote:
| > No modern OS would fare better in those circumstances.
|
| Of course they would. Modern Linux, FreeBSD and macOS are
| totally fine connected to the internet directly with ssh
| enabled and no firewall. Sure; if you expose samba with write
| access and no password, you're in for a world of hurt. But so
| long as your machine is kept up to date with security patches
| and has some form of authentication on all remote services, it
| should (generally) survive just fine on the open internet.
|
| Of course defence in depth is still a good idea. But script
| kiddies aren't using 0day attacks to portscan the open
| internet. But security vulnerabilities in network services get
| fixed.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| In my experience, an weekly-patched, default installation
| debian Linux cira 2015 get a malware in a week or two on the
| open internet.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Modern Windows is fine, too. You may even be able to use
| Windows 7 that way these days. A lot has changed since XP
| SP2.
| jimbobthrowawy wrote:
| When you say connected to the internet, do you mean giving it a
| public IPv4 address or are you behind NAT?
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| I think the biggest risk you'd have with XP online is using
| Internet Explorer, as not only is it going to have tons of
| vulnerabilities that are unpatched, but it'll also be incapable
| of negotiating SSL with modern websites. And the latter would
| also be true of any browsers you brought back from that time
| period to run on it, too, so using Supermium is probably why
| you're doing well.
|
| It's not like tons of embedded systems aren't _still using XP_ to
| this day either.
| lastdong wrote:
| Windows used to have critical vulnerabilities, especially in IE8,
| making you highly susceptible to hacking. These vulnerabilities
| have been patched, and the risk is likely lower now.
| out-of-ideas wrote:
| not just IE - insert Java applets, Adobe Flash; and all the
| other browser "addons" and plugins - it was a mess. but it also
| depended on the websites you'd visit. a great deal of malware
| were spread by ads and even facebook was not spared - its deff
| not the same as it used to be; adblockers were used back then
| too - the biggest difference is now we're plagued with
| javascript and it literally being allowed to do what all
| malware ever wanted: to spy on users any way the site-op sees
| fit.
|
| remember malware used to simply crash hard drives, erase
| everything, sloww your system down, cause bsods... it was mid
| 2000s when a wise man once said something along the lines of
| "its amazing that malware can install, auto update, and run
| flawlessly without the user even knowing - something the OS
| fails to do"
|
| the browser is not simply safe because the os is safe -
| certainly the OS helps, but the browser is safe due the latest
| code techniques and sec folks investing so much time into it.
| if they solely relied on the os being safe, then we'd all be
| fools to use a browser - i mean, more than we are in allowing
| javascript so much power
| cqqxo4zV46cp wrote:
| > now we're plagued with javascript and it literally being
| allowed to do what all malware ever wanted: to spy on users
| any way the site-op sees fit.
|
| This is flat-out untrue. Beyond hyperbole. If JavaScript had
| the system access that literally any piece of malware sought,
| the world would be an utter shit show in a way it simply
| isn't.
| meowster wrote:
| They didn't say JavaScript has system access, just that it
| can be used to spy on users (in the browser, and everything
| seems to be moving to the browser).
| AmVess wrote:
| Not useful at all.
|
| Go back in time and connect it to a network full of infected
| hosts, and you'll have a very different experience.
|
| Why is it such a surprise that a machine won't get infected when
| the common vectors of attack for those OS's no longer exist.
| jmgao wrote:
| Back in the days of blaster, if you were connected to a network
| with infected machines or had a public IP address because you
| were connected straight into your cable modem, you would get
| infected in the windows installer before it finished installing.
| Nowadays, everything is behind NAT and there aren't any infected
| Windows XP machines left on your local network, so that's not a
| problem anymore.
| tetris11 wrote:
| Herd immunity, huh?
| zamadatix wrote:
| More that NAT forces your network gear to filter inbound
| connections from the outside internet by default. This works
| with one device behind one router as a billion devices behind
| a billion routers.
| lupusreal wrote:
| For some reason whenever somebody suggests that NAT might have
| security benefits, there is usually some hysterical screeching
| about how that isn't true. Often seen in IPv6 discussions.
| rcxdude wrote:
| because it's unnecessary to get the same benefit. Being
| behind a firewall would have the same effect (and any ipv6
| deployment will have this), it's just that NAT _requires_
| this. It 's like saying eating a spoonfull of cinnamon has
| health benefits because it hydrates you when you have to
| drink a glass of water afterwards: you could just drink the
| water.
| throwaway1105q wrote:
| I don't quite understand what you mean by "any ipv6
| deployment will have this". When my ISP switched to IPv6,
| my internal devices were exposed to the internet and the
| only thing that stopped the incredible amount of bot
| traffic was my own on-device firewall that I explicitly
| turned on and configured. Luckily I don't have any
| smarthome stuff, not sure how I'd configure a firewall on a
| lightbulb. These devices didn't have a public IPv4 before
| that. And a bonus - the ISP didn't say anything about this
| possible consequence, just "we're making some changes".
|
| NAT has more benefits - I don't want anyone to know how
| many devices I have at home, I don't want anyone to know
| which one I'm using to access their website, I don't want
| anyone to try guess the OS and version of my devices, etc.
| And now I'm scared to have a simple DLNA media server
| because I can't just install WireGuard on the TV. I'm
| probably going to buy a router and make my own NAT soon
| (don't have access into the ISP modem).
|
| I felt better when the whole municipality had a single IP
| address. A lot of bullshit ads - means the targeting wasn't
| working. Now they're way too good.
| rcxdude wrote:
| Well, that sounds like a colossal misconfiguration on the
| ISP's part. A firewall blocking incoming requests has
| been standard part of ISP routers for a long time.
| throwaway1105q wrote:
| On the other hand... What exactly is the benefit of IPv6
| then? I thought the point was to make all my devices
| addressable on the public internet. How is it useful if
| the ISP firewall blocks my servers?
|
| And yes, incompetent ISPs are the norm.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The biggest benefit is exponentially higher complexity,
| assuring continued job growth for network engineers.
| bzzzt wrote:
| The point is not needing a NAT translation table and
| running out of ports on your router. My provider also
| delivers an IPv6 configuration with all ports closed. I
| can enable incoming traffic for the devices that need it.
| throwaway1105q wrote:
| Running out of ports how? Someone is hosting 65536 public
| services in their home network? Why not just pay for an
| additional public ipv4 then?
|
| I can't configure anything technical about my internet.
| Any change is paid, and often simply not possible.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| My ADSL connection rides on some non-IP network before it
| hooks up to a concentrator about an hour away. Most
| location based services, other than Apple, seem to assume
| I am in Norwich, NY. So I get these ads that say "They
| don't like it when seniors use this one weird trick to
| save money on car insurance in Norwich but they can't
| stop it" and "Horny grandmas want to jump your bone right
| now in Norwich" and such.
|
| Contrast that to using public WiFi in NYC where everybody
| knows exactly where you are.
| throwaway1105q wrote:
| I'm on DOCSIS to the Home / Fiber to the Building, but
| there seems to be some kind of overlay network and as a
| result, my PC that's hooked into the modem is on the
| public internet.
|
| Before IPv6 it was a classic internal LAN with IPs like
| 192.168.0.1.
| RulerOf wrote:
| > I don't want anyone to know how many devices I have at
| home
|
| Even if your ipv6 host or border firewall allows pings
| through, it's not practical to scan an entire /64.
| There's just too many addresses in it, and your devices
| will frequently change them.
|
| > I don't want anyone to know which one I'm using to
| access their website, I don't want anyone to try guess
| the OS and version of my devices, etc.
|
| They already do this through fingerprinting that operates
| with higher-layer protocols.
|
| > And now I'm scared to have a simple DLNA media server
| because I can't just install WireGuard on the TV.
|
| This is very simple to implement. Ensure it's listening
| on the link-local address. That's the IP that starts with
| fe80. These are unrouteable by spec.
| throwaway1105q wrote:
| > They already do this through fingerprinting that
| operates with higher-layer protocols.
|
| It's very hard to distinguish my iPhone and Mac from the
| other dozens/hundreds people have in my building just
| through fingerprinting. Very easy if they have separate
| IP addresses.
|
| Ad link local - cool, I'll look into that, thanks.
| crazygringo wrote:
| It's actually very easy just through fingerprinting. You
| might be surprised.
|
| It doesn't matter if everyone in your building has an
| iPhone and a Mac as well -- there are things about
| virtually every single one of them that make them unique.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _When my ISP switched to IPv6, my internal devices were
| exposed to the internet and the only thing that stopped
| the incredible amount of bot traffic was my own on-device
| firewall that I explicitly turned on and configured._
|
| When my (previous) ISP switched on IPv6 none of my
| internal devices could be connected to because my Asus
| did stateful packet inspection and only allowed in
| replies to connections that were previously initiated.
|
| > _NAT has more benefits - I don 't want anyone to know
| how many devices I have at home, I don't want anyone to
| know which one I'm using to access their website_
|
| Given that temporary IPv6 addresses tend to rotate every
| 24 hours it will kind of hard to track individual devices
| by IP in a 2^64 address space.
|
| You could rotate addresses 10 million times per second,
| using each only once, and it would take over 5000 years
| to exhaust a single /64.
|
| > _I felt better when the whole municipality had a single
| IP address. A lot of bullshit ads - means the targeting
| wasn 't working. Now they're way too good._
|
| I now have to use a ISP-supplied router (for GPON), but
| when I still had my Asus on the DSL/IPv6 ISP I could tell
| it to reboot every night and I would get a new IPv4
| address and a new IPv6 prefix every day.
| tflol wrote:
| This looks like the usual ipv6 kool aid batshit. I don't
| want a bunch of kids and enemy states poking at and port
| scanning my laptop directly, regardless of whether or not I
| have a firewall enabled.
|
| And, no, I don't think it's practical for everyone and
| their grandma to "just set up a bastion"
| rcxdude wrote:
| I mean, they'd need to figure out your IP address
| beforehand, something that's a lot harder with ipv6.
| You've also got a much better chance of punching a packet
| through a NAT than an ipv6 firewall (and it's now
| expected behaviour for a lot of applications, as NAT
| makes it too difficult to just make connections
| directly).
| LegionMammal978 wrote:
| Wouldn't IPv6 firewalls configured for typical users
| (i.e., denying unrecognized incoming connections) pose a
| similar barrier to making direct connections reliably on
| the application level? Not every user will be willing or
| able to open a hole in their firewall for every shiny new
| application that wants one.
| rainonmoon wrote:
| They wouldn't need to figure out anything. The "kids and
| enemy states" are just hosing address ranges. I don't
| agree with the above commenter that NAT offers any
| meaningful security in this regard (now they're just
| hosing your consumer router instead which is probably
| less secure than the average updates-installed Defender-
| enabled Windows box). But you're both making points about
| security through obscurity in different ways.
| tflol wrote:
| > now they're just hosing your consumer router
|
| There is a dramatic difference in effort between ( owning
| a device ) and ( owning a router, configuring network
| access to the device, then owning the device ).
|
| Also psychologically: If I was a rock hard piece of shit
| and I knew I was at the doorstep of a personal device, I
| would treat it much more aggressively than a router. I
| suppose maybe that's just me and not the kids and enemy
| states.
| rainonmoon wrote:
| I mean, I don't know why you would when the router
| potentially gives you a foothold across many devices
| instead of one and the router is likely running multiple
| services. Yes, that is just you; the threat model I'm
| describing is widespread automated attacks, not
| individual or particularly motivated.
| tflol wrote:
| You're saying there's less incentive for widespread
| automated attacks on personal devices?
|
| edit: Changing the subject to insulting me is a bad way
| to conclude. You're creating an illusion the debate is
| concluded in your favor instead of responding to points.
| I don't think any of my points had a sound argument
| against them.
| rainonmoon wrote:
| No brother, I'm not, but I'm starting to feel that what I
| am saying might be beyond the likelihood of
| comprehension. Look, I'm a big fan of NAT. Huge. It's not
| a security control. Neither is v6. It sure is cool
| though.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _The "kids and enemy states" are just hosing address
| ranges._
|
| If you could scan one million addresses every second it
| would take about 500,000 years to scan just one /64. Not
| sure how practical that would be.
|
| When I was still with an ISP that did IPv6 my Asus would
| block any incoming connection attempt unless it was a
| reply (SPI firewall), though it may have (IIRC) allowed
| pings in by default.
| utensil4778 wrote:
| Yeah, I think it is very explicitly a _bad thing_ for all
| devices to be directly exposed to the entire internet-
| firewall or no. NAT is a pain, sure, but it does have the
| benefit of _forcing_ you to have a network isolated from
| the internet, and only allow external access when
| explicitly configured to do so.
|
| I have exactly one machine which needs to be accessible
| from outside the local network. The rest of them should
| _never_ be. Do I want to spend extra time ensuring that
| each and every single device on my network is secure, or
| do I want to do the inverse and assume all devices are
| secure and only spend effort to make the one machine
| exposed?
|
| I can't imagine anyone who would actually want or need
| their WiFi toaster to be publicly routable, WiFi cameras,
| every computer. There's absolutely no reason for it.
| Instead of relying on network isolation, we expect users
| to just implicitly rely on who knows how many different
| firewall implementations. Hopefully your router
| configures it by default.
| 63stack wrote:
| Isn't NAT slipstreaming a "real" vector?
|
| https://samy.pl/slipstream/
| jeroenhd wrote:
| NAT slipstreaming only works if your router allows
| protocols like SIP, FTP, WebRTC, and other such protocols
| that NAT breaks, luckily.
|
| Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that's all routers I've ever
| seen. You can protect yourself if you're willing to break
| web applications and applications built on web technology.
| Just disable all of the SIP ALGs in your router and you'll
| have the security of IPv6 on IPv4!
| LegionMammal978 wrote:
| I think the usual security objection is that if the NAT
| router receives a packet from the outside, with its
| destination set to a local address, the router will just let
| it through, in the absence of a firewall.
|
| But as far as I can tell, that's only relevant for an
| attacker who can MITM the connection between the local router
| and the next ISP router, since clearly the ISP wouldn't know
| who to forward the local address to. I'd think it isn't
| within the threat model of the "typical internet user" who'd
| be running such a poorly-configured network.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _For some reason whenever somebody suggests that NAT might
| have security benefits, there is usually some hysterical
| screeching about how that isn 't true._
|
| It is not the _address translation_ mechanism that does the
| protecting but rather the _state tracking_.
|
| Until very recently I was with an ISP with IPv6, and things
| like my home printer had IPv6 addresses--but just because
| they were _globally addressable_ did _not_ mean that they
| were _globally reachable_.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| I would guesstimate about 20-30 seconds was all you needed to
| be connected for to pick up blaster...
| cqqxo4zV46cp wrote:
| Yep. Before I knew what it was, I genuinely thought that an
| issue occurred when my connection established. That's how
| fast it was, and it was consistently that fast.
| ddalex wrote:
| How did blaster do it so fast?
| bzzzt wrote:
| Because there were so many infected machines probing
| through the entire IPv4 space then.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| >Nowadays, everything is behind NAT and there aren't any
| infected Windows XP machines
|
| All end-user PCs have been behind NAT since the late 90s unless
| the system was a dialup straggler. Enterprise users raw-dogging
| the internet only have themselves to blame.
| jmgao wrote:
| This is absolutely false. This only became common when
| wireless networking became ubiquitous, which wasn't until
| probably a decade later.
| InfamousRece wrote:
| When I got my first broadband Internet connection my
| contract explicitly prohibited me from using NAT.
| Apparently my Internet provider was concerned I would use
| NAT to connect multiple computers thus "stealing"
| bandwidth. This concern was not completely unfounded since
| people sometimes would set up one connection and share it
| with neighboring apartments. Also having one computer per
| household was normal back then.
| zinekeller wrote:
| Even discounting dial-up, this really depends on where you
| are in the world at the time. PPPoE and direct hookup (via
| the cable/ADSL modem) are still relatively common where I was
| at the time that Blaster was roaming around, while some
| countries have forced CGNAT even before CGNAT became a common
| word, usually for "protecting the children" like Cleanfeed
| (and even discounting that, event at the time you could still
| get IPv4 effortlessly there had been, and certainty there are
| still, crappy ISPs which don't really care about direct
| connections).
| alex_duf wrote:
| I'm afraid this is factually wrong, my computer had a public
| IP until the early 2010s as around these days modems were
| just models and not routers too.
|
| And with IPv6 all my devices could be publicly addressed but
| I've enabled a firewall to block incoming traffic at the
| router level.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Circa 2001 a friend of mine installed Red Hat Linux on a
| computer and I waited a few hours to log in to harden it which
| was a mistake because it got hacked in that time.
|
| Don't blame the OS, blame the brain-damaged language that puts
| the C in Cthulhu.
| lproven wrote:
| Yep. I installed XP64 on a high-end 2008 Thinkpad last year, and
| it was great fun. I wrote it up here:
|
| https://www.theregister.com/2023/07/24/dangerous_pleasures_w...
|
| A key watchword is to not let any MS code access the Internet.
| Don't use MS email, chat, media players, etc. Use more modern 3rd
| party ones and you're much much safer.
|
| It's more or less necessary to use IE to get it set up, but you
| can install IE 8.0.6001 offline before you start updating it,
| which also saves about half an hour.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| There's a lot of fearmongering around keeping updated, and
| "connecting Windows XP to the internet is a bad idea" is one of
| them.
|
| What makes this truly devious is that there's a kernel of truth
| to it: Connecting Windows XP _to the internet_ will indeed give
| you a bad day.
|
| That's not what happens most of the time now, though: Most
| computers, Windows XP or otherwise, are going to be _connected to
| a LAN_ behind a gateway /router and a firewall sitting between
| the LAN and the internet. Windows XP is therefore isolated from
| most of the threats that are indeed very real.
|
| Windows XP itself also has a firewall built-in, though the OOTB
| settings won't provide adequate protection.
|
| The moral of this is, the best lies are those with hints of truth
| sprinkled in.
| lmz wrote:
| Well now that there's no other XP LAN hosts it's mostly OK.
| Getting it on an unclean LAN with infected hosts will get you
| infected, and that was a common occurence back in the day.
| wruza wrote:
| Behind a NAT you're safe even with Win9x. Idk about XP-latest,
| but you don't want to connect a fresh pre-SP installation right
| to the uplink cable. I wouldn't do that with any version of
| windows, even from the "windows server" line.
| 2snakes wrote:
| For science!
| tetha wrote:
| Curiously enough, the youtuber who tried this with windows XP
| did the same thing with Windows 98 [1]. And it gets hit by
| strange packets and scans, but that system was fine even when
| running for a day or two.
|
| 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssTIx0qm2to
| RetroTechie wrote:
| For a really ancient OS like Windows 98, I'd think >99.99% of
| exploits out there target newer OSes & simply don't work on
| Win98. Safety by obscurity.
|
| That said: for every idiot who hooks up a Windows 98 machine
| to the internet, there might be some other idiot checking
| whether exploits targeting it, still work. Or exploit kits
| that sniff an OS, and select exploits to apply accordingly.
|
| Vulnerabilities tend to have a long tail...
| varelaz wrote:
| I had only one problem, all certificates were outdated, so all
| https resources didn't work (like 99% of web). I had to download
| certificate updates to flash drive on another PC to install them,
| then all worked fine, I used outdated Firefox but it still good.
| fifteen1506 wrote:
| Off-topic: I miss dial-up modus operandi. The assumption was
| internet access was sporadic and at most attempts to access
| internet would trigger the dial-up catalog.
|
| Have to try to emulate that by removing the default gateway and
| adding a proxy to the network.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Diablo II should be running on Linux via Bottles. Do your laptop
| a favor, remove Windows XP.
| oaiey wrote:
| A firewall is a firewall. If TCP/IP routing is properly setup
| (and afair Windows XP default settings for non-home networks
| where alright) and you browse the internet responsible, you can
| survive for quite a while I guess.
| ozim wrote:
| Do you have an external IP? I expect you are behind NAT and no
| one is directly scanning your laptop.
|
| Make it available on public IP wait until IP is listed on shodan
| telling it is XP and then let us know how long it was running
| without being infected.
| bambax wrote:
| Of course!
|
| The whole security circus is a legend and a paranoia that mostly
| serves OS manufacturers. And now that Recall exists, it will be
| difficult to maintain that Win11 or M$ care about security at
| all.
| sgjohnson wrote:
| So it was behind a firewall. Now do it without a firewall.
| Turboblack wrote:
| I've been using XP for many years and have no complaints about
| viruses. Moreover, viruses are not created now, but only trojans.
| and trojans do not get along on old systems; 32 bits is not
| enough for them to get around))). seriously, modern malware is
| always for modern hardware, modern tricks on how to deceive the
| user, and how to get something out of him. what can you take from
| the user's xp? Nothing! )) i use EEEPC 701 with XP sp3 and i have
| no problems with it
| h0ek wrote:
| It is still possible to use an Amiga and connect it to the
| Internet. It is still possible to use VHS tapes and watch films
| on them. I am not sure why you would want to do this. Maybe your
| computer is fine now, but if you are targeted by an attacker, you
| make it easier, or if someone steals your laptop, I guess there
| is no encryption by default. Better to use Linux on old machines.
| And in 2024 we have great emulators or virtual machines for more
| than 10 years to make old games work fine. Cool that you made it
| work, but I have no idea why. Maybe for fun, or testing, but for
| everyday use, nah, thx.
| Unbefleckt wrote:
| I've disabled windows defender and gutted the OS of all it's
| features that I don't need for the past 26 years and never had
| any problems. I always resist the next update as long as I can
| get away with it (usually some software I need to use will only
| work on the next update) It's probably really stupid but I've yet
| to suffer for it. I mainly use my PC for creative purposes,
| Steam, and Web browsing. If my identity is in danger someone must
| be putting it to good use.
| rkagerer wrote:
| You missed one other mitigation tool: 0patch
|
| It's usefulness is limited on XP but you might have applications
| that are captured. They also haven't closed the door (at least as
| of last year) to patching any future major-drama events that come
| up: https://0patch.zendesk.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/360018274139-Do...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-01 23:03 UTC)