Two Different Instructors On Using Tor Crypto Etc...
https://securityinabox.org/en/about http://bpo4ybbs2apk4sk4.onion/ This toolkit was created by the Tactical Technology Collective and Front Line Defenders. The development of the toolkit is supported by Hivos, Internews, Sida, EIDHR, Oak Foundation, Sigrid Rausing Fund, AJWS, Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation. Special Thanks to The Citizen Lab, the Guardian Project, Riseup, the Tor Project & EFF https://tacticaltech.org/ Tactical Tech is an international NGO helping human rights advocates use information... https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/ Front Line Defenders was founded with the specific aim of protecting human rights defenders... https://ansarukhilafah.wordpress.com/category/security-tips/ Everything about the Islamic state; News updates,All Media releases,fatawa and articles about the Khilafah...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 03:17:17 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
The development of the toolkit is supported by Hivos, Internews, Sida, EIDHR, Oak Foundation, Sigrid Rausing Fund, AJWS, Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation.
That's a laundry list of 'progressive' fascists, who certainly don't overlook this mailing list as a propaganda outlet.
Special Thanks to The Citizen Lab, the Guardian Project, Riseup, the Tor Project & EFF
laundry list of 'pro-privacy' scumbags fully aligned with the project of their fascist bosses. thanks grarpamp for the updates on what your side is up to.
On 07/17/2016 01:17 AM, grarpamp wrote:
https://securityinabox.org/en/about http://bpo4ybbs2apk4sk4.onion/
It doesn't mention Whonix! WTF? Or even anything about preventing leaks, except a warning about Orweb (0.6.1 and older). There's a section on COMODO Firewall with links about iptables and OSX apps, but the focus is entirely on defense against malware and hacking. This would not have protected people against FBI attacks on users of Freedom Hosting and PlayPen. If FBI does that shit, do you think that NSA doesn't? Or that your other favorite evil TLAs don't? Sad :( <SNIP>
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:52:11AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 07/17/2016 01:17 AM, grarpamp wrote:
https://securityinabox.org/en/about http://bpo4ybbs2apk4sk4.onion/
It doesn't mention Whonix! WTF?
most of this is pre-snowden stuff, there has been little updates in the last few years. it's quite a bit of work not only to maintain this (new screenshots for changing UIs over the years) and then also translating all this in all the languages in which it is available. dunno if ttc had attracted more funding to update siab lately.
This would not have protected people against FBI attacks on users of
i contributed to siab but i stopped recommending it 1-2 years ago, as i have similar concerns as you regarding the material.
Freedom Hosting and PlayPen. If FBI does that shit, do you think that NSA doesn't? Or that your other favorite evil TLAs don't?
the clients of the above linked material are usually (sadly) aligned with the interests of US foreign policy. and just like with tor (also the basis for whonix as you surely know) i'm not surprised the US is sponsoring something they can break, but provides some cover for the pawns in their geopolitical interests. -- otr fp: https://www.ctrlc.hu/~stef/otr.txt
On 07/18/2016 03:55 AM, stef wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 12:52:11AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
On 07/17/2016 01:17 AM, grarpamp wrote:
https://securityinabox.org/en/about http://bpo4ybbs2apk4sk4.onion/
It doesn't mention Whonix! WTF?
most of this is pre-snowden stuff, there has been little updates in the last few years. it's quite a bit of work not only to maintain this (new screenshots for changing UIs over the years) and then also translating all this in all the languages in which it is available. dunno if ttc had attracted more funding to update siab lately.
I guess. But damn, an up-to-date English version makes more sense to me.
This would not have protected people against FBI attacks on users of
i contributed to siab but i stopped recommending it 1-2 years ago, as i have similar concerns as you regarding the material.
Sad.
Freedom Hosting and PlayPen. If FBI does that shit, do you think that NSA doesn't? Or that your other favorite evil TLAs don't?
the clients of the above linked material are usually (sadly) aligned with the interests of US foreign policy. and just like with tor (also the basis for whonix as you surely know) i'm not surprised the US is sponsoring something they can break, but provides some cover for the pawns in their geopolitical interests.
My current working hypothesis is that Tor is not broken/breakable by design. But I've become increasingly concerned by the continuing emphasis on Tor browser (easy to install but easily compromised) and omission of Whonix (harder to install but much harder to compromise). It is arguable that ease of use trumps strong protection, in that there's greater net benefit. But less charitably, maybe the need for numerous users to hide among trumps everything else.
On 07/18/2016 03:39 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:45:19 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
My current working hypothesis is that Tor is not broken/breakable by design.
keep sucking mirimir - your friend syverson isn't fully satisfied yet.
He's not my friend, Juan. He works for the fucking US Navy, after all. But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders and their enemies. It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's intentionally designed to be vulnerable. There's also the fact that nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to global adversaries. So it seems unlikely that he had such a design that he put aside as unsellable.
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:31:09 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/18/2016 03:39 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:45:19 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
My current working hypothesis is that Tor is not broken/breakable by design.
keep sucking mirimir - your friend syverson isn't fully satisfied yet.
He's not my friend, Juan. He works for the fucking US Navy, after all.
But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders and their enemies.
Oh come on Mirimir. As 'we' know, they did the only thing they could have done. The only way for them to be able to exploit their users as cover is by making the system 'public' and 'free'. They didn't do it because of ANY altruistic and humanitarian motivation. They had no other choice, and it was good propaganda to boot! So, 1) They need human shields, their abused 'users' 2) The system doesn't pose a threat to 'GPAs' - that is the system doesn't pose a threat to its owner, the US military.
It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's intentionally designed to be vulnerable.
The distinction looks rather subtle. It's actually invisible and non-existent from my point of view...
There's also the fact that nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to global adversaries.
Hardly surprising cosidering how powerful the US government is and how far its control over 'industry' and 'academy' goes. It includes the 'community' of sold out 'hackers' too. Also, it should be obvious that having bad and *subsidized* systems like tor fucks up the 'market' for security.
So it seems unlikely that he had such a design that he put aside as unsellable.
2) The system doesn't pose a threat to 'GPAs' - that is the system doesn't pose a threat to its owner, the US military.
GPA? Someone chasing a decent grade point average? GNU privacy assistant? We need a way to have a git backed WordNet or VERA local dictionary, perhaps connected to wiktionary.org so we can sync new acronyms for our command line tapping dict pleasure.
On 07/19/2016 04:46 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
2) The system doesn't pose a threat to 'GPAs' - that is the system doesn't pose a threat to its owner, the US military.
GPA? Someone chasing a decent grade point average? GNU privacy assistant?
GPA = global passive adversary And actually, they're global _active_ adversaries :(
We need a way to have a git backed WordNet or VERA local dictionary, perhaps connected to wiktionary.org so we can sync new acronyms for our command line tapping dict pleasure.
On 07/19/2016 03:34 PM, juan wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 03:31:09 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/18/2016 03:39 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:45:19 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
My current working hypothesis is that Tor is not broken/breakable by design.
keep sucking mirimir - your friend syverson isn't fully satisfied yet.
He's not my friend, Juan. He works for the fucking US Navy, after all.
But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders and their enemies.
Oh come on Mirimir. As 'we' know, they did the only thing they could have done.
The only way for them to be able to exploit their users as cover is by making the system 'public' and 'free'. They didn't do it because of ANY altruistic and humanitarian motivation. They had no other choice, and it was good propaganda to boot!
I didn't say that there was anything altruistic or humanitarian about it. And yes, they did what they had to do.
So,
1) They need human shields, their abused 'users'
Yes, they do. All Tor users do, actually.
2) The system doesn't pose a threat to 'GPAs' - that is the system doesn't pose a threat to its owner, the US military.
Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. I can't imagine how you know. I do agree that it's prudent to be suspicious. But no better alternatives have been implemented. So the best option that I see is layering stuff. Route Tor through nested VPNs. Route Mixmaster, Pond, Bitmessage, etc through Tor. Encrypt private stuff with GnuPG.
It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's intentionally designed to be vulnerable.
The distinction looks rather subtle. It's actually invisible and non-existent from my point of view...
Maybe so.
There's also the fact that nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to global adversaries.
Hardly surprising cosidering how powerful the US government is and how far its control over 'industry' and 'academy' goes. It includes the 'community' of sold out 'hackers' too.
If your assessment is correct, we are truly fucked :(
Also, it should be obvious that having bad and *subsidized* systems like tor fucks up the 'market' for security.
Yes, it does :(
So it seems unlikely that he had such a design that he put aside as unsellable.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:13:27 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders and their enemies.
Oh come on Mirimir. As 'we' know, they did the only thing they could have done.
The only way for them to be able to exploit their users as cover is by making the system 'public' and 'free'. They didn't do it because of ANY altruistic and humanitarian motivation. They had no other choice, and it was good propaganda to boot!
I didn't say that there was anything altruistic or humanitarian about it. And yes, they did what they had to do.
So, what point were you making? Syverson and co. did the only thing they could have done if they wanted to help the US nazi military - What exactly is 'respectable' about that? Any 'good' they did, they did it only as means to do as much damage as they could.
So,
1) They need human shields, their abused 'users'
Yes, they do. All Tor users do, actually.
I don't know. What I do know is that the ones who created the system and misrepresent it are syverson and co.
2) The system doesn't pose a threat to 'GPAs' - that is the system doesn't pose a threat to its owner, the US military.
Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. I can't imagine how you know.
If you don't want to use basic reasoning skills and want to ignore evidence regarding how far the sabotage of internet 'security' goes, that's your problem.
I do agree that it's prudent to be suspicious. But no better alternatives have been implemented.
So what. You know, to me you sound like a christian who want to believe bullshit because he doesn't want to face reality. Is the tor fairy tale comforting?
So the best option that I see is layering stuff. Route Tor through nested VPNs. Route Mixmaster, Pond, Bitmessage, etc through Tor. Encrypt private stuff with GnuPG.
Not the issue at hand...
It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's intentionally designed to be vulnerable.
The distinction looks rather subtle. It's actually invisible and non-existent from my point of view...
Maybe so.
There's also the fact that nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to global adversaries.
Hardly surprising cosidering how powerful the US government is and how far its control over 'industry' and 'academy' goes. It includes the 'community' of sold out 'hackers' too.
If your assessment is correct, we are truly fucked :(
If you expect help from the establishment you certainly are fucked.
Also, it should be obvious that having bad and *subsidized* systems like tor fucks up the 'market' for security.
Yes, it does :(
So it seems unlikely that he had such a design that he put aside as unsellable.
On 07/21/2016 12:47 AM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:13:27 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders and their enemies.
Oh come on Mirimir. As 'we' know, they did the only thing they could have done.
The only way for them to be able to exploit their users as cover is by making the system 'public' and 'free'. They didn't do it because of ANY altruistic and humanitarian motivation. They had no other choice, and it was good propaganda to boot!
I didn't say that there was anything altruistic or humanitarian about it. And yes, they did what they had to do.
So, what point were you making? Syverson and co. did the only thing they could have done if they wanted to help the US nazi military - What exactly is 'respectable' about that?
Any 'good' they did, they did it only as means to do as much damage as they could.
It's clear from Syverson's writing that he has a devious sense of humor. And that he gets off on being clever. So I consider it possible that he was just fucking with them. It amuses me. But anyway, it's pointless to argue about people's motivations. What we have now is Tor. Do we ignore it, or make the best of it? I say that it's better than nothing. You disagree. So it goes.
So,
1) They need human shields, their abused 'users'
Yes, they do. All Tor users do, actually.
I don't know. What I do know is that the ones who created the system and misrepresent it are syverson and co.
Whoever controls Tor Project is misrepresenting it. We agree on that. What we disagree about is how badly they are misrepresenting it.
2) The system doesn't pose a threat to 'GPAs' - that is the system doesn't pose a threat to its owner, the US military.
Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. I can't imagine how you know.
If you don't want to use basic reasoning skills and want to ignore evidence regarding how far the sabotage of internet 'security' goes, that's your problem.
So tell me again, what would you have people use instead of Tor?
I do agree that it's prudent to be suspicious. But no better alternatives have been implemented.
So what. You know, to me you sound like a christian who want to believe bullshit because he doesn't want to face reality. Is the tor fairy tale comforting?
Same question. What to use, if not Tor? Nothing? How is that better?
So the best option that I see is layering stuff. Route Tor through nested VPNs. Route Mixmaster, Pond, Bitmessage, etc through Tor. Encrypt private stuff with GnuPG.
Not the issue at hand...
Huh? What the bloody hell do you mean by that?
It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's intentionally designed to be vulnerable.
The distinction looks rather subtle. It's actually invisible and non-existent from my point of view...
Maybe so.
There's also the fact that nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to global adversaries.
Hardly surprising cosidering how powerful the US government is and how far its control over 'industry' and 'academy' goes. It includes the 'community' of sold out 'hackers' too.
If your assessment is correct, we are truly fucked :(
If you expect help from the establishment you certainly are fucked.
You work with what you have.
Also, it should be obvious that having bad and *subsidized* systems like tor fucks up the 'market' for security.
Yes, it does :(
So it seems unlikely that he had such a design that he put aside as unsellable.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:49:44 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
It's clear from Syverson's writing that he has a devious sense of humor.
I don't know, although that "users get routed" paper title is clearly an insulting pun. The motherfucker is making FUN of the idiots who get 'rooted' 'routed' using his garbage network. Incredible.
And that he gets off on being clever. So I consider it possible that he was just fucking with them. It amuses me.
Well, enjoy your amusement...
But anyway, it's pointless to argue about people's motivations. What we have now is Tor. Do we ignore it, or make the best of it?
I say that it's better than nothing. You disagree. So it goes.
That's your personal preference, not an argument. And the "better than nothing" bit has been addressed ad nauseam. Cheap VPNs are also 'better than nothing'.
Whoever controls Tor Project is misrepresenting it. We agree on that.
What we disagree about is how badly they are misrepresenting it.
OK.
If you don't want to use basic reasoning skills and want to ignore evidence regarding how far the sabotage of internet 'security' goes, that's your problem.
So tell me again, what would you have people use instead of Tor?
Tell me, do you like cats?
I do agree that it's prudent to be suspicious. But no better alternatives have been implemented.
So what. You know, to me you sound like a christian who want to believe bullshit because he doesn't want to face reality. Is the tor fairy tale comforting?
Same question. What to use, if not Tor? Nothing? How is that better?
I can't recall if I mentioned VPNs? Freenet? Maidsafe, if they ever finish it? I don't know. Have the 'cypherpunks' create something? Aren't some 'cypherpunks' rather rich? And what about the people who bought bitcoins at 10 cents? Can't they put their money where their mouths are? Ah no. Better to use the pentagon's fake anonimity network.
So the best option that I see is layering stuff. Route Tor through nested VPNs. Route Mixmaster, Pond, Bitmessage, etc through Tor. Encrypt private stuff with GnuPG.
Not the issue at hand...
Huh?
What the bloody hell do you mean by that?
I'm not focussing on how to apply patches to broken-by-design tor at the moment...
If you expect help from the establishment you certainly are fucked.
You work with what you have.
That is absurd. If what you have is not fitted for the task at hand you are just wasting your time.
On 07/21/2016 03:19 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:49:44 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
If you expect help from the establishment you certainly are fucked.
You work with what you have.
That is absurd. If what you have is not fitted for the task at hand you are just wasting your time.
OK, but here you are, using a GMail address, and presumably nothing to substantively obscure your identity. Maybe you're not "wasting your time", but you are for sure trusting your environment. And, I would argue, you are limiting yourself to what you can say and do that won't get you fucked up.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:22:58 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/21/2016 03:19 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:49:44 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
If you expect help from the establishment you certainly are fucked.
You work with what you have.
That is absurd. If what you have is not fitted for the task at hand you are just wasting your time.
OK, but here you are, using a GMail address, and presumably nothing to substantively obscure your identity.
It's a bit too late for me to start hiding my identity. And the US hasn't invaded argentina yet =P (though they just might =/ )
Maybe you're not "wasting your time", but you are for sure trusting your environment. And, I would argue, you are limiting yourself to what you can say and do that won't get you fucked up.
Ah, you are talking about things one can personally do online? I was referring in general to tools used to achieve political ends. Like, I don't know, if the only 'official' recourse you have to change a political system is voting, then you better not waste time with it because you will get nowhere. Likewise, expecting an anonimity network provided by the government to be meaningfully useful against the government strikes me as naive at best.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:00:56PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:22:58 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/21/2016 03:19 AM, juan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:49:44 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
If you expect help from the establishment you certainly are fucked.
You work with what you have.
That is absurd. If what you have is not fitted for the task at hand you are just wasting your time.
OK, but here you are, using a GMail address, and presumably nothing to substantively obscure your identity.
It's a bit too late for me to start hiding my identity. And the US hasn't invaded argentina yet =P (though they just might =/ )
Not directly no, just the usual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor " Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be attributed to Condor,[8][9] and possibly more.[10] " " The United States government provided technical support and supplied military aid to the participants until at least 1978, and again after Republican Ronald Reagan became President in 1981. "
From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 04:22:58 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 07/21/2016 03:19 AM, juan wrote:
> It's a bit too late for me to start hiding my identity. > And the US hasn't invaded argentina yet =P (though they just > might =/ ) "Where shall we go, Max?" "Argentina?" [Yellow Submarine 1968]Yellow Submarine (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jim Bell
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 03:29:35 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's a bit too late for me to start hiding my identity. > And the US hasn't invaded argentina yet =P (though they just > might =/ )
"Where shall we go, Max?" "Argentina?"
Ahaha! Good catch! I missed that one. Actually, I don't remember much of the movie. Torrent...
[Yellow Submarine 1968]Yellow Submarine (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jim Bell
On 07/19/2016 02:31 AM, Mirimir wrote:
On 07/18/2016 03:39 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:45:19 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
My current working hypothesis is that Tor is not broken/breakable by design.
keep sucking mirimir - your friend syverson isn't fully satisfied yet. He's not my friend, Juan. He works for the fucking US Navy, after all.
But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders and their enemies.
It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's intentionally designed to be vulnerable. There's also the fact that nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to global adversaries. So it seems unlikely that he had such a design that he put aside as unsellable.
You're arguing logically with a brain-dead troll Mirimir...
On 07/20/2016 10:03 AM, Rayzer wrote:
On 07/19/2016 02:31 AM, Mirimir wrote:
On 07/18/2016 03:39 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:45:19 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
My current working hypothesis is that Tor is not broken/breakable by design.
keep sucking mirimir - your friend syverson isn't fully satisfied yet. He's not my friend, Juan. He works for the fucking US Navy, after all.
But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders and their enemies.
It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's intentionally designed to be vulnerable. There's also the fact that nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to global adversaries. So it seems unlikely that he had such a design that he put aside as unsellable.
You're arguing logically with a brain-dead troll Mirimir...
I don't consider Juan to be a troll. I get that he doesn't have much patience with those whom he sees as fools :) But being considered a fool has never bothered me ;) It's my favorite Tarot card.
On 07/21/2016 01:26 AM, Mirimir wrote:
On 07/20/2016 10:03 AM, Rayzer wrote:
On 07/19/2016 02:31 AM, Mirimir wrote:
On 07/18/2016 03:39 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 04:45:19 -0600 Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
My current working hypothesis is that Tor is not broken/breakable by design. keep sucking mirimir - your friend syverson isn't fully satisfied yet. He's not my friend, Juan. He works for the fucking US Navy, after all.
But I do respect him. Think about it. He and his friends got US military funding for a project that provided deniable and secure communication, but only by making it public, for use by both funders and their enemies.
It might be that this vulnerability was crucial for selling it to US military. But that's distinguishable from the argument that it's intentionally designed to be vulnerable. There's also the fact that nobody has come up with anything practical that's not vulnerable to global adversaries. So it seems unlikely that he had such a design that he put aside as unsellable.
You're arguing logically with a brain-dead troll Mirimir...
I don't consider Juan to be a troll. I get that he doesn't have much patience with those whom he sees as fools :) But being considered a fool has never bothered me ;) It's my favorite Tarot card.
From another thread: Juan: "Tor is criminal garbage created by the pentagon to serve their ends." Sorry he's a troll, and as I've claimed repeatedly he's simply fishing for info to catalog responses. His irrational extremism gives him away. He's looking for extremists to stalk by acting like one. Just because he can make some sort of argument to support a position doesn't mean he isn't a federal troll doing socio-psychlogical profiling. Most of his shorter posts could be written by an AI robot. Rr
participants (7)
-
grarpamp -
jim bell -
juan -
Mirimir -
Rayzer -
stef -
Zenaan Harkness