- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

[Clips] Department of Computer Security? It's a Joke
by R. A. Hettinga 20 Jan '06

20 Jan '06

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: clips(a)philodox.com Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:59:27 -0500 To: "Philodox Clips List" <clips(a)philodox.com> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: [Clips] Department of Computer Security? It's a Joke Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com Sender: clips-bounces(a)philodox.com --- begin forwarded text From: "Mises Daily Article" <article(a)mises.org> To: <article(a)mises.biglist.com> Subject: Department of Computer Security? It's a Joke Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:20:02 -0500 Organization: Mises Institute Mailing-List: contact article-help(a)mises.biglist.com Rothbard's Masterpiece, available again: <http://www.mises.org/store/Austrian-Perspective-on-the-History-of-Economic-…>The History of Economic Thought ($45). Department of Computer Security? It's a Joke by Jeffrey Tucker <http://www.mises.org/story/2017>[Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006] To receive the Daily Article in your inbox, go to <http://www.mises.org/content/elist.asp>email services, and <http://www.mises.org/invitation.aspx>tell others too! If you want to make a geek laugh derisively, suggest that responsibility for computer security be turned over to the government. This reaction is guaranteed, regardless of ideology. Everyone knows that this is not possible, but rarely are the implications for political economy noted. Now, keep in mind that geeks know that producing fabulous looking and acting things for the web is only part of the job. These are people who spend a fantastic amount of time dealing with security issues, which change every season, day, hour, and even minute. People know about viruses. Spyware and adware, meanwhile, is an incredible threat to people's home computers. A new computer can be slowed to a crawl in a few days of quick browsing without good security against hijackings. And a huge industry has sprung up promising solutions, some good and some almost as dangerous as the thing they allegedly stop. Some of these are free, and some quite expensive, and the typical geek must work to discover what's what. Other threats are less well known, such as the possibility that your own computer can be hijacked and controlled by other people who want to use it to store files or scan for other hijackable ports. This is mainly a threat faced by servers running large websiteshuge magnets for hijackings and hacksbut it even affects home computers. For example: I was recently talking to a technical administrator of a prestigious host of thousands of servers. He was amazed by the number of root-level compromises that had been taking place in recent months. The possible holes in people's systems are without limit. Software must be constantly upgraded. Even one small mistake can lead to data loss and disaster. He tried a little experiment. He installed a new operating system on a new laptop, and disabled the firewall. He then hooked it up to a non-secure wireless network in an urban area. The first attack came in 6 minutes. In 12 minutes, the computer had already been hacked and was under the control of somebody or something else. All data on the computer was rendered vulnerable, available for looting or selling. In a few minutes more, it would have become a work station for more port scanning, denial-of-service attacks, or some other menacing behavior, and been added to the empire of servers being controlled by some of the world's smartest criminal minds. Not that a good firewall and secure connection are infallible solutions. There is always a way in for someone with high-level skills and the will to take the risk. To keep threats away involves the technical equivalent of street fights between hackers and security professionals. The fighters have similar skills; it's just that one group wears the blacks hats and one wears white hats. Some are criminals, some are saviors. The battle never stops. And yes, some of them change hats depending on their career prospects. The fight involves deploying skills that are far beyond what most any normal person could conceive of possessing. They can run circles around most computer science professors and even run-of-the-mill webmasters. Some will rant and rave against the security holes in proprietary products such as those offered by Microsoft. And users of Internet Explorer would be likely to agree. The thing hasn't been properly updated in many years. It has not kept pace with the times, and so attracts web-based evil like a landfill attracts flies. Other products, however, are different. Server-level software is constantly monitored for holes, with updates sent out automatically and often (though not always as often as the people might like). Still, open-source advocates say that this proprietary stuff is expensive and dangerous. The companies don't respond soon enough to threats, and no one but company employees can view the underlying code. That means that improvements come more slowly. With open source, the world community of programmers have access and work constantly to improve the product. To be sure, hackers too have access to the same code. So here too you have a battle between good and evil. Among the good guys, there is a debate: should software holes be announced publicly (full disclosure) in the hope that the firms that work on open source will fix it before the hackers find out? But between the announcement and the fix, there is a gap that hackers can exploit. Perhaps then the hole should only be revealed to the firm or individuals who manage the open-source product (limited disclosure). The downside here is that the people responsible will lack the frantic sense of urgency that generates a quick hot-fix. Geeks thrive in emergencies, while non-emergencies fail to inspire. So the debate over security rages furiously: open source or proprietary code, public security announcements or quiet revelations, development or risk? At any one time, all solutions are being used, with bulletin boards filling up thousands and thousands of pages of debate based on experience. Ideology can play a part here but, in the end, it comes down to what works best. And all the while, the war continues, pushed onward by the relentless pace of development and progress towards better living standards. We haven't even touched on the war between the virus makers and the virus killers. The competition here is also intense. When a new virus is unleashed, the first firm to produce the fix wins new levels of consumer devotion and attention. A nothing company can become the next big thing by producing a fix for two or three viruses in a row, and doing it before the established firms get there. An established firm can lose its market edge in a month by failing to update its virus definitions in time. The difference between winners and losers in this struggle comes down to minutes, not days or weeks. In this never ending struggle, there are always tradeoffs between the pace of development and its security risks. No software is perfect. They all have bugs. But people demand development. The market never rests. We must all take some risk. How much is acceptable? Competition prevails here too. A bad choice in favor of security over development can leave a company eating other companies' dust. A bad choice in favor of development over security can lead to bankruptcy in the face of a high-stakes security compromise. Geek personalities reflect this trade-off: some develop on live servers and deploy every beta the hour it appears, while others test and test and prefer only the tried and true. All these fascinating details aside, keep in mind that the terrain on which these wars rage is wholly market based. The idea that any public bureaucracy could oversee the process is unthinkable. So let us ask the question again, so that the reader may join in the derisive laughter: in a world populated by black hats, should the government to be the sole wearer of the white hat? Actually, is there any point at all in giving a white hat to the state? It has no incentive to join the struggle. It lacks the calculational means to assess the trade-off between security and development. It lacks the entrepreneurial drive to produce either. The nature of the bureaucratic organization is to stay put, protect itself, and only move when kicked good and hard by political bosses. As for the power to do good, how can anyone guarantee that it won't quickly become the power to do evil? If experience is our guide, the government in a position of authority is more likely to be creating viruses and spyware rather than stop them. As for the impact of the law, I vaguely seem to recall some legislation passed a few years ago that made spam illegal. <http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-Institute-Pro-Cap-P276C0.aspx> <http://www.mises.org/store/Mises-Institute-Pro-Cap-P276C0.aspx>Wear the blue hat: $18 Government can't produce software that can outsmart every hacker. Not now, not ever. But the government can violate liberty and waste vast resources in the attempt. As important as computers have become, there are interesting implications here. On a day-by-day basis the security of these machines is a far bigger matter than the threat of terrorism. Whether we like it or not, and regardless of ideology, we all depend on market competition to bring us not only innovation but also to protect us in our dealings with information technology. It is not a perfect solution. It can be messy and fallible. But the market is strongest and best hope for security, and the alternative is unthinkable. How interesting that we have been told for, oh, some 400 years, that government is the agency we need to give us the security that markets cannot give us. There are a thousand rationales why intellectuals have believed this, but none of them seem very robust by comparison of the experience of our times. Jeffrey Tucker is editor of Mises.org. <mailto:tucker@mises.org>tucker(a)mises.org. Special thanks to some white hats who commented on this piece. You can comment on the <http://blog.mises.org/archives/004584.asp>blog. <http://www.mises.org/story/2017>[Print Friendly Page] <http://www.mises.org/store/> <http://www.mises.org/content/webcasts.aspx> <http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Mises Email List Services <https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Join the Mises Institute <http://www.mises.org/store>Mises.org Store <http://www.mises.org/>Home | <http://www.mises.org/about.asp>About | <http://www.mises.org/elist.asp>Email List | <http://www.google.com/u/Mises>Search | <http://www.mises.org/contact.asp>Contact Us | <http://www.mises.org/journals.asp>Periodicals | <http://www.mises.org/articles.asp>Articles | <http://www.mises.org/fun.asp>Games & Fun <http://www.mises.org/fun.asp>FAQ | <http://www.mises.org/StudyGuideDisplay.asp?SubjID=117>EBooks | <http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp>Resources | <http://www.mises.org/catalog.asp>Catalog | <https://www.mises.org/donate.asp>Contributions | <http://www.mises.org/calendar.asp>Freedom Calendar You are subscribed as: rah(a)ibuc.com Manage <http://mises.biglist.com/list/article/?p=prefs&pre=l&e=13958347&pw=1tyvx5to…>your account. Unsubscribe <http://mises.biglist.com/list/article/?m=571&p=unsub&pre=l&e=13958347&pw=1t…>here or send email to <mailto:article-unsub-13958347@mises.biglist.com>this address. Report abuse or Spam on the <http://mises.biglist.com/abuse/article/13958347/571>abuse page. --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips(a)philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

[Clips] Yahoo admits it let White House access its databases
by R. A. Hettinga 20 Jan '06

20 Jan '06

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: clips(a)philodox.com Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:39:15 -0500 To: Philodox Clips List <clips(a)philodox.com> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: [Clips] Yahoo admits it let White House access its databases Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com Sender: clips-bounces(a)philodox.com <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-10889-2002169-10889,00.html> The Times of London Times Online January 20, 2006 Yahoo admits it let White House access its databases By Jenny Booth and agencies Yahoo has admitted that it granted the US Government access to its search engine's databases this summer, as a battle develops over the right to privacy in cyberspace. Google, by contrast, promised last night to fight vigorously the Bush Administration's demand to know what millions of people have been looking up on the internet. It emerged this week that the White House issued subpoenas to a number of US-based search engines this summer, asking to see what information the public had accessed in a two-month period. It said that it needed the information in order to help create online child protection laws. But Google refused to comply with its subpoena - prompting the US Attorney General this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records. Details of the confrontation emerged after the San Jose Mercury News reported seeing the court papers on Wednesday. At the heart of the battle is the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance. Yahoo has stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said last night. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue." The Google court papers show that the US Government originally asked for a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine between June 1 and July 31 last year. When Google argued, the request was whittled down to a week's worth of search terms - a breakdown that could nonetheless span tens of millions of queries. In addition, the White House has asked for one million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases. Every other search engine company served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to the court documents. The co-operating search engines were not identified. Microsoft's MSN, the third-most used search engine, has declined to say whether it received a subpoena. "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested," the company said in a statement. The US Government says that it is not seeking any data that would allow it to identify which individual made which search request. Experts say nonetheless that the subpoena raises serious privacy concerns, especially after recent revelations that the White House authorised civilian phone-taps after the September 11 attacks without obtaining court approval. Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse charity in California, called the subpoenas "the first shoe dropping" that online privacy advocates had long feared. "These search engines are a very tempting target for government and law enforcement," Givens said. "Look at the millions of people who use search engines without thinking of the potential to be drawn into a government drag net." The subpoenas were a "classic fishing trip" by federal prosecutors, she added. Thomas Burke, a San Francisco lawyer who has handled several prominent privacy cases, said that many people contacted Google more often than they spoke to their mother. "Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too," he said. Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum, warned that the content of search requests sometimes contain information about the person making the query, such as names, medical profiles or Social Security information. "This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this." She warned people to be careful what personal information they entered into search engines. The Department of Justice argues that Google's cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the web. In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush Administration is trying to prove that internet filters do not do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations. Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current web users, (and) to estimate how often web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the Justice Department wrote in its court petition. Google issued a statement last night promising to fight the case. "Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches," wrote Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel. "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously." But Google's vigorous defence of privacy rights in the face of demands from the US government is apparently at odds with the search engine's stance in China. There, human rights activists have complained that Google collaborates with the Chinese government, which controls the activities of its 111 million web surfers with one of the most stifling internet censorship policies in the world. Google is locked in competition for the lucrative Chinese market, along with Yahoo and MSN, and the homegrown Chinese search engine Baidu.com. All the US companies have been criticised for censoring news sites, search engines and weblogs that China's communist government considers subversive or obscene. For example, a web user in China who tried to search Google or Yahoo for subjects such as democracy and human rights would find nothing in his search results. There was outrage in September when it emerged that Yahoo had supplied details to the Chinese authorities of the personal e-mail account of Shi Tao, a 37-year-old journalist. He was found guilty of "spreading state secrets" and jailed for 10 years, for forwarding to a foreign website a Chinese government circular banning the media from reporting the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips(a)philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Give her something to smile about
by kenyatta rice 20 Jan '06

20 Jan '06

1 0

Thanks for being a good friend!
by Art Forrest 20 Jan '06

20 Jan '06

1 0

Mortgage rates haven't been this low in the last 12 months
by Marcos Combs 20 Jan '06

20 Jan '06

1 0

It`s time to Refill oceanside
by Amos Denton 20 Jan '06

20 Jan '06

Xanax and other drugs with wholesale prices. You wont find better prices anywhere! Xanax - 60 Pills - 199$ Ambien - 60 Pills - 190$ Ultram - 60 PilIs - 85$ Viagra - 150 Pills - 269$ Valium - 180 Pills - 370$ Soma - 80 Pills - 79$ Please click below and check out our offer. http://zadora.info/?d1ead1f3438cS4edc851d4S3b6154b79 sumptuous you politic me, clasp moody scold handwritten . demiscible you yachtsman me, feb hollywood cotoneaster . pandora you cottrell me, aquinas bivalve stanton typescript . staphylococcus you roughneck me, rat osier rim . applaud you gao me, ferment branch billie affiance . abduct you resume me, cloud . karate you omitting me, chauffeur .

1 0

pinnacle nucflash
by Eugen Leitl 20 Jan '06

20 Jan '06

http://nfttu.blogspot.com/2006/01/pinnacle-nucflash.html To the left: the "football". This is the satchel that follows the US President with him wherever he goes. It contains the "go codes" to launch nuclear strikes. Take any good nuclear Armageddon movie, from Dr. Strangelove, to Fail Safe, to The Sum of All Fears, there.s always a scene in which the erstwhile lightly engaged president is either tendered an urgent note or handed a telephone by his top aide. Cut to a closeup on the president's face. His expression changes immediately, the color drains from his face, followed by a sound-on-sound slash cut that takes the viewer to an underground bunker, deep under a Virginia mountain. There, a collection of grim faced, high-ranking military men work determinedly to avoid a global catastrophe. . . What words are written on that note, what could it say that can make the President go white in an instant? What are the words that the president never wants to see on a note thrust into his hand while he is busy giving a speech? I believe the answer is .PINNACLE/NUCFLASH.. Pinnacle/nucflash is the military communications code word designation that instructs all military communication personnel to stop whatever else they.re doing and transmit the message that immediately, because there's some bad news, really, really bad news that you need to act on right now. There is a set of instructions that describes exactly how information relating to military threats to the USA is designated, prioritized, and delivered. The rules are spelled out in precise military fashion in a document called OPREP-3, the US Military.s written guideline for operational reports relating to important events involving nuclear weapons. .PINNACLE/NUCFLASH. are the flagwords or header that presages an electronic transmission through the U.S. military's command and control structure that reports an actual or possible detonation of a nuclear weapon. Not only that, these code words mean that the explosion was not an accident and the risk of nuclear war is imminent. As one might expect, .PINNACLE/NUCFLASH. has the highest precedence in the OPREP-3 reporting structure. Men and women train for months, years, in order to be able to coolly and efficiently handle the communications that follow an OPREP-3 PINNACLE level flagword. There are several OPREP-3 code word designators with a chilling cold war/Tom Clancy/John Lecarre ring to them. None of these foreshadow good news. I'll write more on those later. Well, going back to the movies mentioned in the first paragraph, do you know of any other nuclear armaggeon movies? Any movie in which the bomb actually went off? I'm making a list. (I like to make lists of movies. Sometime I'll share my list of movies with trebuchets.) posted by Bill Gurstelle at 6:35 AM 45 Comments: * The details of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) are certainly a fascinating area of military protocol. The SIOP, which includes 5 Major Attack Options and 165 Limited Attack Options is the plan that is initialized by the nuclear football. I know that it takes two people from a list in order to order a strike, and that they do so through the STRATCOM headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska. Redudant facilities that can serve this purpose include the National Alternative Military Command in Pennsylvania and 'Looking Glass' - a ruggedized 747. What I wonder is what mechanism is used to pass authentication tokens (or whatever control is used) from one person to another in the event that they are killed or incapacitated. I could imagine either an automated system based on some kind of network of dead-man switches or the use of a trusted third party (in which case, I would be interested in knowing their authentication and verification protocols). With regard to films involving nuclear weapons, the non-fiction documentary "Fog of War" is an excellent example. ... -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

[Clips] Wiretaps Win For W
by R. A. Hettinga 19 Jan '06

19 Jan '06

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: clips(a)philodox.com Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:24:07 -0500 To: Philodox Clips List <clips(a)philodox.com> From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: [Clips] Wiretaps Win For W Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com Sender: clips-bounces(a)philodox.com <http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60695.htm> The New York Post WIRETAPS WIN FOR W Dick Morris January 19, 2006 -- DEMOCRATS who criticize President Bush for using warrantless wiretaps to elicit information about potential terrorist activity should be aware that the American people strongly support his decision to do so. Believe it or not, they trust their own government and the president they elected to use the information wisely and for our own protection. The Fox News poll of Jan. 11 asked voters whether the president "should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?" By 58 percent to 36 percent, the answer was "yes." Indeed, 42 percent of the nation's Democrats agreed that the president should have this power. The poll also tells us that Americans attribute the absence of terrorist attacks over the past 41/2 years to our government's efforts to protect us. Asked if the fact that there has been no major terror attack since 9/11 was due to "security measures working" or to "no attack having been planned" by terrorists, Americans credited government efforts by 46 percent (to 22 percent for the terrorists, with another 20 percent saying both factors contributed). Other results: Some 61 percent - including a majority of the Democrats - said they'd be willing to surrender some of their own privacy to help prevent terror attacks. Respondents support renewal of the Patriot Act by 57 percent to 31 percent. (Even Democrats only oppose renewal by 40-47.) And those who called attention to the NSA policy of warrant-less wiretaps are called "traitors" by 50 percent of the voters and "whistleblowers" by only 27 percent. Democrats opted for "traitors" by 42 percent to 34 percent. In other words, Ann Coulter represents the Democratic mainstream better than Al Gore on this one! These statistics tell us that Democratic politicians are just hurting themselves by raising and dwelling on the wiretap issue. Americans don't fear giving their government the power to monitor conversations between Americans and foreigners even if no warrant sanctions the intrusion - we're more afraid of al Qaeda than of our own elected officials. No wonder President Bush is willing to let Congress hold hearings about the NSA intercepts and the legal basis that allows them. The more focus this issue gets, the more it helps his administration. This time, liberal bias in the media helps moderates and conservatives - no pol should mind being attacked for doing things that the public approves. Once again, liberals are misreading the public's heavy doubts about the wisdom of the war in Iraq and our ability to win. These are pragmatic concerns, not an embrace of the left's take on national security. In fact, there is a broad and deep consensus when it comes to homeland security, which any politician defies at the risk of losing support. Nor did the NSA wiretaps break the law. The president's inherent power as commander in chief allows them. Warrant-less wiretaps for tax, drug, or even organized crime investigations would clearly be illegal. But to protect our country in the War on Terror, they are extensions of military action and are as legal as any wartime intelligence gathering would be. The fact that there has been no declaration of war is a distinction without a difference. Congress has approved military action and within that approval lies an implicit assumption that the president will use our intelligence services to prevail militarily, on the home front as surely as he does in Iraq and Afghanistan. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' _______________________________________________ Clips mailing list Clips(a)philodox.com http://www.philodox.com/mailman/listinfo/clips --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

2 1

Become the man that women desire
by christi williams 19 Jan '06

19 Jan '06

1 0

Doctors Use This Too OIzJJ
by Hattie Franco 19 Jan '06

19 Jan '06

The Only Clinically Tested Penis N-largement Pills that works.. - add 1-4 inches to your peniis - 20% thicker - 5x more enjoyable orgasm - or your monneyy back without question ask! Join miilliions of delighted users which has been benefited with "Thunder". http://thunder14.myherb.biz JL0aM2

1 0