Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 89
  1. #31
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yarra Glen, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    54
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by stevem5000 View Post
    For my PC's I got a 3 TB USB HD and am using Macrium Reflect to create regular full image backups...as it seems
    quite likely that CL CANNOT infect a compressed, encrypted backup...I plug the USB HD in and run Macrium about
    once a week and UNPLUG the HD after the image has been created...
    I also use Macrium in the way described. It produces backup files with a .mrimg extension, which in any case is not among the file types which CL is said to act upon. However, I guess this is no guarantee?

    My backups go to a partition on an external USB drive. I don't want to disconnect the drive, because there are other partitions on it which are always in use. Is it possible to disable just one partition, while leaving the drive connected?

  2. #32
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Does anyone here know if CryptoLocker acts immediately upon infecting your computer?
    You can do all the backups you want, but if CL is on your backup, you're out of luck.

    Dave S.

  3. #33
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yarra Glen, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    54
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    So you keep multiple backups - probably at least three - so you can revert to a backup which was taken before the infection occurred.

  4. #34
    Lounge VIP bobprimak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Hinsdale, IL, USA
    Posts
    2,297
    Thanks
    138
    Thanked 112 Times in 96 Posts
    Regarding Crypto Prevent and the suggestions in several recent Windows Secrets Newsletters:

    Why does Windows by default allow executions from these locations in the first place? I am referring to the locations blocked (with Whitelist exceptions) by all the mitigations and Group Policy changes and EMET restrictions I have read about so far. Why not just issue a Critical Security Update for each Windows version, and enforce these policies across the boards -- adding a GUI Whitelist configurator for those exceptions which may arise on a particular Windows installation?

    By contrast, my Ubuntu Linux already uses Whitelists and No Exec types of restrictions, has an included firewall, and warns of any "substandard" installation package before allowing it to execute. Most of the security policies are stricter than Windows, and nobody gets to run anything as Root (super-Administrator) without a login popup window.

    If Linux can do this, why can't Windows? Are Windows programs so badly written that they provoke excessive blocks or popup dialogs when proper security restrictions are enforced across the boards? Do too many Windows programs run as Administrator for no good reason? Is the Operating System itself inherently insecure?

    This is not to say that an unwary Linux user can't get hit by crypto-viri. We can, and it has happened occasionally. But almost always it was a case of an inexperienced or unwary user actually overriding warnings and login dialogs, or a locally injected rootkit. At least as far as I have read to date.

    If you really want to stay up late at night, think of the next-gen viri which can overwrite parts of the BIOS and other firmware if they can get past hardware DEP. No one would be safe from these monsters.

    In reference to DrWho's backup regimen -- he says he leaves his backup drives (all three of them?) always attached to the main computer (even when it is online?). So can't CryptoLocker encrypt ALL local drives? Including those precious Backup Drives?

    I always leave my backup drives unplugged until the system is offline and thoroughly scanned by two or three full-system AV/AS scanners. Yeah, this can take a whole overnight, but it's worth it for the peace of mind. And in no case are all my backup drives attached at the same time. I don't think I'm being excessively cautious, given what we've seen and been reading lately.

    Still, I'd trust my Linux online before I'd trust even hardened Windows online. Which may explain why I'm using Ubuntu right now as I post this. I may not be bomb-proof, but I think I am pretty bullet-proof here.
    Last edited by bobprimak; 2013-11-29 at 04:50.
    -- Bob Primak --

  5. #35
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    10,176
    Thanks
    129
    Thanked 1,139 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bobprimak View Post
    Regarding Crypto Prevent and the suggestions in several recent Windows Secrets Newsletters:

    Why does Windows by default allow executions from these locations in the first place? I am referring to the locations blocked (with Whitelist exceptions) by all the mitigations and Group Policy changes and EMET restrictions I have read about so far. Why not just issue a Critical Security Update for each Windows version, and enforce these policies across the boards -- adding a GUI Whitelist configurator for those exceptions which may arise on a particular Windows installation?

    By contrast, my Ubuntu Linux already uses Whitelists and No Exec types of restrictions, has an included firewall, and warns of any "substandard" installation package before allowing it to execute. Most of the security policies are stricter than Windows, and nobody gets to run anything as Root (super-Administrator) without a login popup window.

    If Linux can do this, why can't Windows? Are Windows programs so badly written that they provoke excessive blocks or popup dialogs when proper security restrictions are enforced across the boards? Do too many Windows programs run as Administrator for no good reason? Is the Operating System itself inherently insecure?

    This is not to say that an unwary Linux user can't get hit by crypto-viri. We can, and it has happened occasionally. But almost always it was a case of an inexperienced or unwary user actually overriding warnings and login dialogs, or a locally injected rootkit. At least as far as I have read to date.

    If you really want to stay up late at night, think of the next-gen viri which can overwrite parts of the BIOS and other firmware if they can get past hardware DEP. No one would be safe from these monsters.

    In reference to DrWho's backup regimen -- he says he leaves his backup drives (all three of them?) always attached to the main computer (even when it is online?). So can't CryptoLocker encrypt ALL local drives? Including those precious Backup Drives?

    I always leave my backup drives unplugged until the system is offline and thoroughly scanned by two or three full-system AV/AS scanners. Yeah, this can take a whole overnight, but it's worth it for the peace of mind. And in no case are all my backup drives attached at the same time. I don't think I'm being excessively cautious, given what we've seen and been reading lately.

    Still, I'd trust my Linux online before I'd trust even hardened Windows online. Which may explain why I'm using Ubuntu right now as I post this. I may not be bomb-proof, but I think I am pretty bullet-proof here.
    I will focus on one thing you said: whitelisting - you can get whitelisting functionality in Windows simply by using a HIPS. Nothing will run unless you explicitly allow it - which I believe can be a problem for some users, but people need to know what they are doing!

    About backup drives being online and CryptoLocker - yeah, keeping the drives online would ensure CrypoLocker would have a field day with them.
    Anyway, the main issue is still preventing malware from running, which an HIPS would do and good, behavior blocking AVs would do as well.
    Rui
    -------
    R4

  6. #36
    2 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hartford, WI, USA
    Posts
    142
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 29 Times in 16 Posts

    @ruirib

    Quote Originally Posted by ruirib View Post
    Why run a tool that will prevent a specific version of malware, when you can run an AV or a firewall that will prevent all such threats? Sorry, I can't understand it.
    I don't understand either, ruirib.

    I don't understand your remark at all.

    You are such an experienced, helpful and here often seen knowledgeable person that i would have assumed you knew that most of the PuPs that install from AppData can and will not be caught by any AV program. That assumption seems to have been off base, I apologize.

    In CL's case it is always the user who clicked on an attachment or a link and thus initiates the mishap.

    ANY new virus has a zero day infection window before any AV program can detect and (hopefully) remove it.

    And no average firewall will prohibit an action that the user initiated.

    Considering the above and the staggering number of PuPs out there that mostly install via AppData folders this special tool may well be a reasonable line of defense against a special, acute and quite common threat.

    Since CL is new and since it got "invited" by the user something like CryptoPrevent may well be advised.

    Disclaimer: I am in no way at all associated with FoolishIT; I happen to use some of their products.
    Eike J Heinze
    What I am about
    SE Wisconsin

  7. #37
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    10,176
    Thanks
    129
    Thanked 1,139 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by eikelein View Post
    I don't understand either, ruirib.

    I don't understand your remark at all.

    You are such an experienced, helpful and here often seen knowledgeable person that i would have assumed you knew that most of the PuPs that install from AppData can and will not be caught by any AV program. That assumption seems to have been off base, I apologize.

    In CL's case it is always the user who clicked on an attachment or a link and thus initiates the mishap.

    ANY new virus has a zero day infection window before any AV program can detect and (hopefully) remove it.

    And no average firewall will prohibit an action that the user initiated.

    Considering the above and the staggering number of PuPs out there that mostly install via AppData folders this special tool may well be a reasonable line of defense against a special, acute and quite common threat.

    Since CL is new and since it got "invited" by the user something like CryptoPrevent may well be advised.

    Disclaimer: I am in no way at all associated with FoolishIT; I happen to use some of their products.
    I am sorry, your information is not up to date and maybe you need to re-think your AV protection. As a dedicated AV app, I use Emsisoft Antimalware. It's been probably four months since it included optional PUP detection, which I have activated (even if my habits do not make me incur very frequently in PUP installation risks) - regarding this, EAM can even block PUPs silently, with no user input. Emsisoft Antimalware also protects against CryptoLocker and it did right from day one, through its behavior detection module.

    Also, I am not sure I understand what you said about firewalls. A HIPS, like Online Armor, will ask for permission for every new program you run or any new dll used by a program, even after the user initiated such program. Either I misinterpreted you, or your need to review how HIPS work (3rd party firewalls are usually HIPS, even if they are called firewalls but the distinction between both is important and relevant).
    HIPS will ask you to confirm if you allow a previous unknown executable or component to run, even if you started it yourself. It can also provide advice on the specific executable or component, allowing a better informed decision. HIPS are usually whitelisting apps - they only allow execution to what you have previously allowed (they can also allow known system components without your input - and yes, they can determine what is a valid, known system component).

    So, couple best of breed AV and a HIPS and it covers pretty much anything you can throw at your computer, even zero day threats.

    You mention user actions. Yes, the user is a problem, but if a user has two apps warning about something and it still allows it... well, maybe that user shouldn't be on the internet. It's a blunt statement, I concede it is, but we are well past the early 2000s . Being online is risky and users need to be defensive and although tools can help, our role is to educate users.

    Here I have been a strong advocate here of multilayer defenses that include a HIPS. If anything, this whole CryptoLocker situation just reinforces my view about it. In my view, a HIPS coupled with a behavioral detection AV is part of an indispensable safety net that I advise to everyone. It's not a miracle solution, it doesn't replace careful thinking about the prompting that you will get, but it's an overall defense strategy that just works without the need for any additional tools to counter new strategies. Chasing a specific strategy applied by a new threat is always being behind the threats. It's the same philosophy of blacklisting AVs, which is their most glaring failure point - you are always chasing the bad guys. Whitelisting offers a better option, in my view - I have been using apps that offer whitelisting since I went online with my personal computers. Never ran one without a whitelisting app.

    To conclude I cannot avoid to state that PUPs, annoying as they are, are not malware. So while inconvenient, there are really no risks coming from them, at least for now, but best of breed AVs can still get them. The one I use does, and that's also why I advocate best of breed AV apps, which are never free - good technology costs money and I am happy to invest just a few dollars in them, since I'd rather be safe than sorry.

    P.S.: Please note that I am not against adding CryptoPrevent, or any other defense measure. What I really mean is that is much better to add protection that works against multiple threats and ensure the best protection one can get. From what I read about it, it won't do any harm, but the point is, you will only be protected until this CryptoLocker changes its strategy or any other CrypoLocker comes with a new one.
    If you want to add it as an extra protection layer, fine. People should not view it as the substitute for a defensive security strategy that can prevent this and other threats, though.
    Rui
    -------
    R4

  8. #38
    Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 134 Times in 115 Posts
    I think it's a balancing act Rui.

    As you may recall, some time ago, I ran Online Armor in conjunction with Emsisoft Antimalware and was very impressed with them. Unfortunately, I then started to suffer from BSOD's triggered by the incompatibility of Online Armor and Virtual Box, which I needed to run for other purposes. It resulted in me having to remove Online Armor.

    If I had Online Armor still installed on systems at home, I would be quite happy that the HIPS would give me measures needed to prevent CL, but for the reasons above I can't run them, so I need extra layers. My children would not know how to react, so they also get additional layers of protection too.

    At work, it's a different story. The effort to configure an interactive HIPS in a commercial environment coupled with the inability of non technical staff, who are under pressure to get their work done, would result in simply clicking the accept button when whichever HIPS tool used requests permission. Yes, I agree people shouldn't click, but it's really hard to get the message across and people are human after all. I would like to lock down opportunities for people to make mistakes, but to a certain extent, I'm prevented from doing so.

    So, at work, we do have HIPS in our Endpoint Security, but it's silent. I've also deployed additional software restriction policies, by group policy, over and above those required to meet company operating policies and receive automated emails through task scheduler if somebody tries to do something they shouldn't.

    I do get occasional problems with restrictions being triggered and can sympathise when bobprimak asks why does Windows allow execution of apps from %appdata% with very little security requirements by default. It's one of the biggest and most obvious differences between Windows and other families of Operating Systems. In fairness to Microsoft, it stems from historical configurations of their OS that wanted to be easy to use, but in so doing left gaping holes that have now for the most part been plugged. But the legacy continues: why does some software want to run from places that it shouldn't? It would be nice to say "ban everything from running from there", but the world turns to a different tune.

    In my view HIPS is the go to solution for the home user if they are competent to use it proactively. Failing that something like the Crypto Prevent tool is a useful addition.....but at work, it's not so quite so straightforward and, yes, I worry a little.
    Last edited by Tinto Tech; 2013-11-29 at 13:24. Reason: typo
    In God we trust; all others must bring data.

    - William Edwards Deming. 1900 - 1993

  9. #39
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    10,176
    Thanks
    129
    Thanked 1,139 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinto Tech View Post
    I think it's a balancing act Rui.

    As you may recall, some time ago, I ran Online Armor in conjunction with Emsisoft Antimalware and was very impressed with them. Unfortunately, I then started to suffer from BSOD's triggered by the incompatibility of Online Armor and Virtual Box, which I needed to run for other purposes. It resulted in me having to remove Online Armor.

    If I had Online Armor still installed on systems at home, I would be quite happy that the HIPS would give me measures needed to prevent CL, but for the reasons above I can't run them, so I need extra layers. My children would not know how to react, so they also get additional layers of protection too.

    At work, it's a different story. The effort to configure an interactive HIPS in a commercial environment coupled with the inability of non technical staff, who are under pressure to get their work done, would result in simply clicking the accept button when whichever HIPS tool used requests permission. Yes, I agree people shouldn't click, but it's really hard to get the message across and people are human after all. I would like to lock down opportunities for people to make mistakes, but to a certain extent, I'm prevented from doing so.

    So, at work, we do have HIPS in our Endpoint Security, but it's silent. I've also deployed additional software restriction policies, by group policy, over and above those required to meet company operating policies and receive automated emails through task scheduler if somebody tries to do something they shouldn't.

    I do get occasional problems with restrictions being triggered and can sympathise when bobprimak asks why does Windows allow execution of apps from %appdata% with very little security requirements by default. It's one of the biggest and most obvious differences between Windows and other families of Operating Systems. In fairness to Microsoft, it stems from historical configurations of their OS that wanted to be easy to use, but in so doing left gaping holes that have now for the most part been plugged. But the legacy continues: why does some software want to run from places that it shouldn't? It would be nice to say "ban everything from running from there", but the world turns to a different tune.

    In my view HIPS is the go to solution for the home user if they are competent to use it proactively. Failing that something like the Crypto Prevent tool is a useful addition.....but at work, it's not so quite so straightforward and, yes, I worry a little.
    I totally understand your position. No app is perfect and we do need make choices, when we have conflicting options. In your case, the decision not to use a specific HIPS was a pondered decision, knowing the pros and cons of using it.

    My comment on CryptoLocker was basically meant to say that people should at least consider better overall protection strategies, if they are so worried with malware like CryptoLocker (which they should be). Addressing this specific threat alone will work just for this threat. A different threat, or a different modus operandi will not be prevented through this. I think it's just better to find an overall strategy than covering specific holes, although I agree that adding CryptoPrevent as an additional layer will not hurt. Hopefully, that won't give anyone a false sense of security .

    If for some reason, I couldn't run OA, I would look for an alternative HIPS. I have never experienced a malware infection on my systems, but I still would rather have a HIPS in place. Call me nuts, I don't mind . This doesn't mean that I am trying to preach that you should do the same, it's just that I feel comfortable with the HIPS in place and find there is nothing better, security wise, than running a good HIPS.

    Do you still run EAM? EAM provides protection against CryptoLocker, through it's behavior detection feature, so you'd be safe just from using it, anyhow .
    Rui
    -------
    R4

  10. #40
    Lounge VIP
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 134 Times in 115 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ruirib View Post
    Do you still run EAM? EAM provides protection against CryptoLocker, through it's behavior detection feature, so you'd be safe just from using it, anyhow .
    Actually Rui, you have got me thinking now. Due the change of circumstances that I referred to in another place a few weeks ago, I no longer need to run Virtual Box at home. If I must have access to the platforms that my VM's supported, I have plenty of other resources available to me elsewhere.

    So....maybe, it's time for me to revisit Online Armor + EAM while at home.
    In God we trust; all others must bring data.

    - William Edwards Deming. 1900 - 1993

  11. #41
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    5,391
    Thanks
    127
    Thanked 486 Times in 447 Posts
    CLiNT's 2 cents...


    This CryptoLocker thing is hyped out of proportion imo.


    Only a novice would ever consider installing a application like CryptoPrevent purely out of fear of getting infected with CryptoLocker.
    Only a novice would disregard the true and time honored advice that's always been out there, either because it's too hard and takes too much
    time and effort to implement.


    The best forms of prevention are the BASICS that we have always advocated doing, without one single iota of change;
    And they're relatively simple things...

    Stop MINDLESSLY opening attachments in email.
    Stop MINDLESSLY clicking every link in your browser.
    Be careful of where you and your browser go on the internet.
    Keep your internet browser as up to date as possible and be familiar with it's advanced settings.
    Pay close attention to WHAT you are downloading, and from WHERE.
    Ensure that all downloads are ALWAYS scanned prior to running them, and NOT run from directly off the internet.
    Keep your AV and AM software up to date, every single day.
    Keep your OS up to date with all latest security patches.
    Avoid auto-playing any form of media given to you from friends or acquaintances, and always scan them.
    Run as much lower level automated OS maintenance as you can tolerate based on your specific system's performance specifications.


    BACKUPS

    Drive imaging is OK but it's not everything, not by a long shot.
    This is what you need to have in place in some form or another;

    *Need to have all of your OS recovery disks, be they genuine, OEM types, or other bootable media, readily available and tested well beforehand, ...not lost or damaged.
    *Need to have all of your usable programs and drivers with updated versions safely tucked away and backed up independently and on multiple
    forms of media. (CD/DVD, pen drives, external hard disk drives, NAS, Cloud, etc.)
    *Need to have any "out of the ordinary" personal OS settings written down in a notepad or word docu and easily accessible so that they may be re-implemented quickly.
    *Need to test any image that you have made until you are comfortable and confident of the outcome, this includes all boot disks.
    *Need to have every scrap of personally generated data safely backed up independently of anything else.
    This includes email and all of it's settings, photos, document, or anything else you would consider as a loss if you actually did loose them.
    *At least one external HDD dedicated specifically to data backup that is NOT always connected to your system.
    *Stop thinking of backup as a last line of defense. The best recovery is the quickest one.

    ORGANIZATION
    Take a page from a good CPA, and get organized with your data's how and where you store it.
    Good organization is one half of everything.

    Drive imaging is alright for the obvious reasons, but it's also the very best uninstaller tool around. Nothing does a better job
    at removing all traces of complex higher level software, like Office and large antivirus suits, browsers and Windows updates.

    ATTITUDE
    If you are the kind of person who attempts to independently search for resolutions to problems, rather than wine and blame others,
    then you are leaps and bounds ahead of the crowd.

    If I seam preachy, forgive me.
    Most of what I got here is gained from reading the wisdom of others, seeking out the same, and the many hard learned lessons.
    Last edited by CLiNT; 2013-11-29 at 14:44.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Windows 8.1, 64 bit
    Motherboard: DX58SO2*Chipset: X58 Express/Intel ICH10*BIOS: SOX5820J.86A.0888.2012.0129.2203*Processor: Intel Core i7 CPU X 990
    GPU: Nvidia GTX 580*Memory: Corsair 12 GB, 4x3@1600*PSU: Corsair HX1000*Hard drives: REVO X2 160GB*OCZ VERT X3 120GB*5 mechanical storage drives (12 TB) total.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CLiNT For This Useful Post:

    cmptrgy (2013-12-16),Dick-Y (2013-11-30)

  13. #42
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    2,722
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 336 Times in 304 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ruirib View Post
    Addressing this specific threat alone will work just for this threat. A different threat, or a different modus operandi will not be prevented through this.
    Will this protect against other malware?

    YES! A LOT of trojan based malware out there utilizes the same infection tactics and launch point locations as Cryptolocker, therefore CryptoPrevent will protect against all malware that fits the same or similar profile and behavior.


    CryptoPrevent Q&A


    Quote Originally Posted by CLiNT View Post
    Only a novice would ever consider installing a application like CryptoPrevent purely out of fear of getting infected with CryptoLocker.
    What's the disadvantage of installing CryptoPrevent?

    we can block CryptoLocker from launching its payload in your computer.


    Bruce
    Last edited by BruceR; 2013-11-29 at 15:12.

  14. #43
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    5,391
    Thanks
    127
    Thanked 486 Times in 447 Posts
    What's the disadvantage of installing CryptoPrevent?
    None.
    Never said there were.
    Last edited by CLiNT; 2013-11-29 at 15:19.
    DRIVE IMAGING
    Invest a little time and energy in a well thought out BACKUP regimen and you will have minimal down time, and headache.

    Windows 8.1, 64 bit
    Motherboard: DX58SO2*Chipset: X58 Express/Intel ICH10*BIOS: SOX5820J.86A.0888.2012.0129.2203*Processor: Intel Core i7 CPU X 990
    GPU: Nvidia GTX 580*Memory: Corsair 12 GB, 4x3@1600*PSU: Corsair HX1000*Hard drives: REVO X2 160GB*OCZ VERT X3 120GB*5 mechanical storage drives (12 TB) total.

  15. #44
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    10,176
    Thanks
    129
    Thanked 1,139 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinto Tech View Post
    Actually Rui, you have got me thinking now. Due the change of circumstances that I referred to in another place a few weeks ago, I no longer need to run Virtual Box at home. If I must have access to the platforms that my VM's supported, I have plenty of other resources available to me elsewhere.

    So....maybe, it's time for me to revisit Online Armor + EAM while at home.
    Cool .
    Rui
    -------
    R4

  16. #45
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    10,176
    Thanks
    129
    Thanked 1,139 Times in 1,050 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BruceR View Post
    Will this protect against other malware?

    YES! A LOT of trojan based malware out there utilizes the same infection tactics and launch point locations as Cryptolocker, therefore CryptoPrevent will protect against all malware that fits the same or similar profile and behavior.


    CryptoPrevent Q&A



    What's the disadvantage of installing CryptoPrevent?

    we can block CryptoLocker from launching its payload in your computer.


    Bruce
    Well, sorry for stating the obvious, I would rather have apps to prevent anything I don't want to run, from running.
    Rui
    -------
    R4

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •