FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-05-2008, 08:25 PM
"Jonas Norlander"
 
Default firewall

2008/7/5 Jim Douglas <jdz99@hotmail.com>:
>
> I have enabled the 'root' account...but now I get this error,
>
> Copying /root/emma.fw -> 127.0.0.1:/etc
> /etc/ssh/ssh_config: line 52: Bad configuration option: PermitRootLogin
> /etc/ssh/ssh_config: line 53: Bad configuration option: AllowUsers
> /etc/ssh/ssh_config: terminating, 2 bad configuration options

That should be sshd_config. ssh_config is for the client and
sshd_config is for the server.

/ Jonas

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 07-06-2008, 08:18 PM
Jim Douglas
 
Default firewall

> Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 20:20:03 +0300
> From: ed.lau@mail.ee
> To: kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
> Subject: Re: firewall
>
> Jim Douglas kirjutas:
> > I am trying to install FirewallBuilder on Kubuntu and keep getting error
> > ....any suggestions?
>
> I used NARC and it works like a charm -
> http://www.knowplace.org/pages/howtos/firewalling_with_netfilter_iptables/netfilter_automatic_rule_configurator.php
>
> I suggest it also to you!
>
> It is command line script but very well commented and it uses iptables to do its work. NARC is just
> one command line frontend to get iptables configured and run in your way. Installing is very easy -
> just copy 3 different files into different places, modify the firewall script, update running
> services and start script as firewall. Everyting is well documented and easy to use.
>
> You can put to file /etc/rc.local the following row:
> /usr/sbin/narc start
> .... to start NARC automatically at boot.
>
> Then after you configured the NARC and started it - you may forget it. It just works. If you need
> some ports to be open, just reconfigure /etc/narc/narc.conf to fit your needs, restart NARC daemon
> and that's it!
>
> But NARC will not start if there is no IP-address at selected network interface. This is commonly
> when network interface is just not up or getting IP-address takes some time over DHCP. Then you need
> some pause before the NARC will start to give some time for network interface starting up:
> sleep 10; /usr/sbin/narc start
> ... this "10" is the time in seconds, after when the system will run followed command. If 10 seconds
> is not enough for your computer - give some more time Just test it.
>
> You may check firewall working like this:
> sudo iptables -L
> or
> sudo narc status
>
>
> If sudo iptables -L gives you picture like this:
>
> Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> ... then no firewall is working.
>
> If NARC is working - there will be much more longer information in table.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Edmund
>
> --
> kubuntu-users mailing list
> kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users



the narc site has been down...I have configured my home network with Firewall Builder..

I have a Linux PC with Firewall on eth0 dynamic ip, eth1(static IP) has a windows PC.┬* I can browse the web with the Windows PC but can't with the PC that I installed the firewall on,

...this is the output from iptables -L,


root@sa-desktop:~/Desktop/fwbuilder-3.0.0# sudo iptables -L
Chain INPUT (policy DROP)
target┬*┬*┬*┬* prot opt source┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* destination
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
In_RULE_0┬* all┬* --┬* 172.25.25.16┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere
In_RULE_0┬* all┬* --┬* 192.168.1.1┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere
In_RULE_0┬* all┬* --┬* 192.168.1.0/24┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* tcp┬* --┬* 192.168.1.0/24┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* tcp dpt:ssh state NEW
RULE_4┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* 192.168.1.0/24┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW
RULE_6┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW

Chain FORWARD (policy DROP)
target┬*┬*┬*┬* prot opt source┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* destination
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
In_RULE_0┬* all┬* --┬* 172.25.25.16┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere
In_RULE_0┬* all┬* --┬* 192.168.1.1┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere
In_RULE_0┬* all┬* --┬* 192.168.1.0/24┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* 192.168.1.0/24┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW
RULE_6┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW

Chain OUTPUT (policy DROP)
target┬*┬*┬*┬* prot opt source┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* destination
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW
RULE_3┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* 192.168.1.0/24┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW
RULE_4┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* 172.25.25.16┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW
RULE_4┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* 192.168.1.1┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* 192.168.1.0/24┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW
RULE_6┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* state NEW

Chain In_RULE_0 (6 references)
target┬*┬*┬*┬* prot opt source┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* destination
LOG┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* LOG level info prefix `RULE 0 -- DENY '
DROP┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere

Chain RULE_3 (1 references)
target┬*┬*┬*┬* prot opt source┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* destination
LOG┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* LOG level info prefix `RULE 3 -- ACCEPT '
ACCEPT┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere

Chain RULE_4 (3 references)
target┬*┬*┬*┬* prot opt source┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* destination
LOG┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* LOG level info prefix `RULE 4 -- DENY '
DROP┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere

Chain RULE_6 (3 references)
target┬*┬*┬*┬* prot opt source┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* destination
LOG┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* LOG level info prefix `RULE 6 -- DENY '
DROP┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* all┬* --┬* anywhere┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬*┬* anywhere



Thank for your help,

Jim

The iÔÇÖm Talkaton. Can 30-days of conversation change the world? Find out now.
--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 11-05-2009, 10:36 PM
William Biggs
 
Default firewall

I would like to know if ubuntu 9.10 64 bit has a firewall built in ?
I would to know how to edit it . the modem I have dose not have a nat in
it I look at the ip address that ubuntu is pulling is the same ip my
modem has from att isp


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 11-06-2009, 01:51 AM
Brian McKee
 
Default firewall

On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:36 PM, William Biggs <kc8pdr@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to know if ubuntu 9.10 64 bit has a firewall built in ?
> I would to know how to edit it . the modem I have dose not have a nat in
> it I look at the ip address that ubuntu is pulling is the same ip my
> modem has from att isp
The built in firewall is called iptables.
To manipulate that firewall you can use one of several front ends -
'ufw' is already installed for commandline use. Gufw is a GUI for ufw.
Searching 'firewall' in Synaptic will give you lots of other choices
as well.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
 
Old 05-04-2010, 09:04 PM
William Jon McCann
 
Default Firewall

Hey,

So I know we've had long threads about this on fedora-devel but it
isn't clear to me anything came out of them. Maybe we can be more
specific.

Does our current firewall policy for the desktop install make sense?

Does a firewall add any value at all?

Should we have a bidirectional firewall?

Other thoughts? I'd be interested to know if we at least have rough
agreement between people who have written or maintain network
listening services like David, Lennart, Colin, and Owen.

Thanks,
Jon
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 05-04-2010, 09:23 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default Firewall

On Tue, 04.05.10 17:04, William Jon McCann (william.jon.mccann@gmail.com) wrote:

> Hey,
>
> So I know we've had long threads about this on fedora-devel but it
> isn't clear to me anything came out of them. Maybe we can be more
> specific.
>
> Does our current firewall policy for the desktop install make sense?
>
> Does a firewall add any value at all?
>
> Should we have a bidirectional firewall?
>
> Other thoughts? I'd be interested to know if we at least have rough
> agreement between people who have written or maintain network
> listening services like David, Lennart, Colin, and Owen.

There was a private discussion about that by email by a few folks,
initiated by Bastien IIRC, a few weeks ago. It died after a while.

However, I think some of the folks involved agree with me that for the
long run we should have a firewall that focuses on "profiles" instead of
activating seperate services individually, which has been suggested
quite often and is particularly pushed by some baseos people.

In more detail:

I want a minimal system where I can activate one of the predefined
firewall profiles "Internet Cafe", "Corporate Network" and "Trusted/Home
Network" (or similarly named), plus any others defined by the admin, and
which can be attached to the various interfaces and are activated for
them when they go up, and only for them for each iface.

Bastien suggested the various apps should be able to show hints like
"You need to enable service 'mDNS/DNS-SD' to use this service, please
click here to enable it" in the UI for the various programs, when they
are blocked by the fw. I am more arguing for a UI that would show "Your
current firewall 'Internet Cafe' does not allow service 'mDNS/DNS-SD' to
work. Please change to profile 'Corporate Network' or 'Trusted Network'
if you want to use this service and you are in a suitable network."
Rationale behind this: systems are mobile, hence if you enable "mDNS" in
one network it should not mean it is from then enabled in every network
you move your machien to. And secondly, I doubt we could reasonably
explain the differences between the various browsing services to people
(i.e. SMB, mDNS, uPNP), and hence I'd argue that when you enable one of
those service it should be ok to enable the other ones mentioned here as
well. On a network where uPnP is OK to be used, mDNS is too. Something
similar applies to other protocols.

It would be a great step ahead if the discussions we have every now and
then on fedora-devel whether some specific software should be enabled in
the fw would become more specific: instead of asking whether avahi
should be whitelisted in the default fw, I'd like to move those
discussions in the direction that people ask whether avahi should be
enabled in the "Corporate Network" profile or not.

I think Windows has a similar profiles system now, too.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 05-04-2010, 09:36 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Firewall

On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 23:23 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 04.05.10 17:04, William Jon McCann (william.jon.mccann@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > So I know we've had long threads about this on fedora-devel but it
> > isn't clear to me anything came out of them. Maybe we can be more
> > specific.
> >
> > Does our current firewall policy for the desktop install make sense?
> >
> > Does a firewall add any value at all?
> >
> > Should we have a bidirectional firewall?
> >
> > Other thoughts? I'd be interested to know if we at least have rough
> > agreement between people who have written or maintain network
> > listening services like David, Lennart, Colin, and Owen.
>
> There was a private discussion about that by email by a few folks,
> initiated by Bastien IIRC, a few weeks ago. It died after a while.
>
> However, I think some of the folks involved agree with me that for the
> long run we should have a firewall that focuses on "profiles" instead of
> activating seperate services individually, which has been suggested
> quite often and is particularly pushed by some baseos people.
>
> In more detail:
>
> I want a minimal system where I can activate one of the predefined
> firewall profiles "Internet Cafe", "Corporate Network" and "Trusted/Home
> Network" (or similarly named), plus any others defined by the admin, and
> which can be attached to the various interfaces and are activated for
> them when they go up, and only for them for each iface.
>
> Bastien suggested the various apps should be able to show hints like
> "You need to enable service 'mDNS/DNS-SD' to use this service, please
> click here to enable it" in the UI for the various programs, when they
> are blocked by the fw. I am more arguing for a UI that would show "Your
> current firewall 'Internet Cafe' does not allow service 'mDNS/DNS-SD' to
> work. Please change to profile 'Corporate Network' or 'Trusted Network'
> if you want to use this service and you are in a suitable network."
> Rationale behind this: systems are mobile, hence if you enable "mDNS" in
> one network it should not mean it is from then enabled in every network
> you move your machien to. And secondly, I doubt we could reasonably
> explain the differences between the various browsing services to people
> (i.e. SMB, mDNS, uPNP), and hence I'd argue that when you enable one of
> those service it should be ok to enable the other ones mentioned here as
> well. On a network where uPnP is OK to be used, mDNS is too. Something
> similar applies to other protocols.
>
> It would be a great step ahead if the discussions we have every now and
> then on fedora-devel whether some specific software should be enabled in
> the fw would become more specific: instead of asking whether avahi
> should be whitelisted in the default fw, I'd like to move those
> discussions in the direction that people ask whether avahi should be
> enabled in the "Corporate Network" profile or not.
>
> I think Windows has a similar profiles system now, too.
>
> Lennart
>
> --
> Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
> lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
> http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

I like where this is going. I think it's easier to ask the user what
type of network environment they are in rather than if they want to
allow foobarfroz service to run. The latter is a major laughing point
of windows users, even mocked in Apple commercials. We do not want to
repeat their mistakes. However the basic idea of prompting the user to
confirm something does have merit, and it seems to me it would be easier
to answer "I trust those around me" vs "I do not trust those around me"
than to make informed decisions about each and every service that may be
ran.

Hopefully it goes without saying that it would take a certain role
within PK rights to be able to manipulate which firewall profile to
load...

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom▓ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 05-04-2010, 10:54 PM
Bastien Nocera
 
Default Firewall

On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 17:04 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
> Hey,
>
> So I know we've had long threads about this on fedora-devel but it
> isn't clear to me anything came out of them. Maybe we can be more
> specific.
>
> Does our current firewall policy for the desktop install make sense?

No.

> Does a firewall add any value at all?

A little.

> Should we have a bidirectional firewall?

We really only block incoming communications right now, and it's
probably as much of a security risk as opening all the ports, as far as
I'm concerned.

> Other thoughts? I'd be interested to know if we at least have rough
> agreement between people who have written or maintain network
> listening services like David, Lennart, Colin, and Owen.

I'm already discussing this behind closed doors with a few people,
including some RH security people. I'll restart the "negotiations" this
week.

Cheers

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 05-04-2010, 10:54 PM
Bastien Nocera
 
Default Firewall

On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 23:23 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 04.05.10 17:04, William Jon McCann (william.jon.mccann@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > So I know we've had long threads about this on fedora-devel but it
> > isn't clear to me anything came out of them. Maybe we can be more
> > specific.
> >
> > Does our current firewall policy for the desktop install make sense?
> >
> > Does a firewall add any value at all?
> >
> > Should we have a bidirectional firewall?
> >
> > Other thoughts? I'd be interested to know if we at least have rough
> > agreement between people who have written or maintain network
> > listening services like David, Lennart, Colin, and Owen.
>
> There was a private discussion about that by email by a few folks,
> initiated by Bastien IIRC, a few weeks ago. It died after a while.
>
> However, I think some of the folks involved agree with me that for the
> long run we should have a firewall that focuses on "profiles" instead of
> activating seperate services individually, which has been suggested
> quite often and is particularly pushed by some baseos people.
>
> In more detail:
>
> I want a minimal system where I can activate one of the predefined
> firewall profiles "Internet Cafe", "Corporate Network" and "Trusted/Home
> Network" (or similarly named), plus any others defined by the admin, and
> which can be attached to the various interfaces and are activated for
> them when they go up, and only for them for each iface.
>
> Bastien suggested the various apps should be able to show hints like
> "You need to enable service 'mDNS/DNS-SD' to use this service, please
> click here to enable it" in the UI for the various programs, when they
> are blocked by the fw. I am more arguing for a UI that would show "Your
> current firewall 'Internet Cafe' does not allow service 'mDNS/DNS-SD' to
> work. Please change to profile 'Corporate Network' or 'Trusted Network'
> if you want to use this service and you are in a suitable network."

Huh. That's not quite what I said. I said that:
- you need to give feedback to the user
- network profiles were probably part of the solution, but cannot be the
only solution.

If I have to get somebody to launch system-config-firewall to make video
sharing work, then I've already lost.

<snip>
> I think Windows has a similar profiles system now, too.

And the Windows firewall user experience is laughable.

We need to do better than that...

--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 
Old 05-04-2010, 11:04 PM
Lennart Poettering
 
Default Firewall

On Tue, 04.05.10 23:54, Bastien Nocera (bnocera@redhat.com) wrote:

> <snip>
> > I think Windows has a similar profiles system now, too.
>
> And the Windows firewall user experience is laughable.

Well, all I wanted to say is that they seem to have a profile system
like the one I suggested, i.e. distuingishing Home and Internet Cafe
profiles and similar....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gvuiuxortv8/SmV4wPaD4tI/AAAAAAAAGPQ/DxjDXCn4xRM/s1600-h/network_location.jpg

I am pretty sure their UI in general sucks, but to put the fw in
those profiles Is certainly a good thing I believe.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
--
desktop mailing list
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:56 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ę2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org