AFA members, Congressional staff members, civic leaders, DOCA members, in my last note [http://www.afa.org/PresidentsCorner/Notes/Notes_10-22-10.pdf] I described to you the cuts announced by the UK regarding their defense budget. This week, German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said the country would begin budget-drivenrestructuring of its military. A commission studying reforms and expected to make recommendations public in January may recommend cutting the Defense Ministry staff in half and reduce by 25 percent the number of troops. Coupled with the recent UK announcement and possibly our own defense cuts, it appears we naively believe peace is right around the corner. I am reminded of a quote by President Reagan: “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”
In light of these defense cuts, a new book, Monsoon, The Indian Ocean and The Future of American Power, by Robert Kaplan, explores the rise of China and India and how this area will be a test of American Power in the 21st century. He also warns that our military mission in today’s wars is diverting us from properly reacting to the rise of China as a power in East Asia. Remember—spending tomorrow’s money on today’s threats invites tremendous strategic risk. The future is very uncertain, and it is vital that we preserve a strategic range of options for the nation. You can read an interview Kaplan gave to Foreign Affairs Magazine here: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66205/robert-d-kaplan/the-geography-of-chinese-power [requires a free one-time registration.]
Finally, last week in the Washington Post, an op-ed ran that was written by Maj Gen (Ret) Charles Dunlap. The piece was entitled: “Could Airstrikes save lives in Afghanistan?” The simple answer to the question is: Certainly. Airpower is doing this every day. However, the piece cited new studies that show: (1) Since airstrikes were limited in Jun 09, Afghan civilian deaths have risen 31% (2) Only 6% of the civilian casualties attributed to ISAF were caused by Airpower (3) the Taliban are responsible for more than 75% of civilian deaths.
To quote a portion of the op-ed: “Airpower reduces the need to put our precious soldiers in the path of the improvised explosive devices that are killing and maiming more ISAF troops than anything else. And airpower works: The surge in Iraq in 2007 succeeded only when it was accompanied by a fivefold increase in airstrikes.” You can find the piece at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102105936_pf.html
For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn
President/CEO
Air Force Association
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
DHS: Cyber defenders will respect civil rights
An article on Department of Homeland Security-military partnership in regards to protecting the nation's computer networks by The Associated Press:
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — A high-ranking Homeland Security official says the agency will protect Americans' civil liberties and privacy while it partners with the military to protect the nation's computer networks.
An agreement with the military announced two weeks ago "in no way changes our respective departments' promises to protect civil liberties and privacy," Rear Adm. Michael Brown said Wednesday at the National Symposium on Homeland Security and Defense in Colorado Springs.
Brown is assigned to Homeland Security as assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications.
Homeland Security announced Oct. 13 that computer experts from the super-secret National Security Agency, part of the Defense Department, will work with DHS to protect the computer networks that have become the backbone of financial, communication and transportation systems.
That agreement raised concerns among civil liberties groups, which said safeguards would be needed to protect civil rights.
Brown said the partnership won't infringe on civil rights or expand the military's role.
The military has a legal obligation to protect citizens' privacy and civil liberties, said Air Force Maj. Gen. David Senty, chief of staff at U.S. Cyber Command, the Defense Department command responsible for military actions in cyberspace.
"We do not see Cyber Command and NSA as a balance between liberty and security. We work to protect both," Senty told the symposium Thursday.
For the full article and to see related articles, click here.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — A high-ranking Homeland Security official says the agency will protect Americans' civil liberties and privacy while it partners with the military to protect the nation's computer networks.
An agreement with the military announced two weeks ago "in no way changes our respective departments' promises to protect civil liberties and privacy," Rear Adm. Michael Brown said Wednesday at the National Symposium on Homeland Security and Defense in Colorado Springs.
Brown is assigned to Homeland Security as assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications.
Homeland Security announced Oct. 13 that computer experts from the super-secret National Security Agency, part of the Defense Department, will work with DHS to protect the computer networks that have become the backbone of financial, communication and transportation systems.
That agreement raised concerns among civil liberties groups, which said safeguards would be needed to protect civil rights.
Brown said the partnership won't infringe on civil rights or expand the military's role.
The military has a legal obligation to protect citizens' privacy and civil liberties, said Air Force Maj. Gen. David Senty, chief of staff at U.S. Cyber Command, the Defense Department command responsible for military actions in cyberspace.
"We do not see Cyber Command and NSA as a balance between liberty and security. We work to protect both," Senty told the symposium Thursday.
For the full article and to see related articles, click here.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Cybersecurity in the News
Hackers shopping malware network
By Washington Times' reporter Shaun Waterman
According to a Washington Times article, a hacker group calling itself the Iranian Cyber Army is gathering a network of infected computers, and selling it to cybercriminals to spread spam and malicious software.
Aviv Raff, of the computer security firm Seculert, told The Washington Times that the group was exploiting a vulnerability in the popular blogging software program WordPress to gain control of unsuspecting Internet users' computers and add them to its network — known as a botnet, or robot network — of infected machines. He said the botnet, one of hundreds controlled by hacker gangs and cybercrime syndicates all over the world, could be used to launch cyber-attacks against Tehran's enemies.
Most researchers regard the Iranian Cyber Army (ICA) as "hacktivists" — politically motivated pro-Iranian hackers — and there is no evidence they are linked to the Tehran government. Almost a year ago, a group using that name attacked U.S.-based social networking platform Twitter, and then Chinese search engine Baidu, briefly diverting visitors to those Web pages to a different page decorated with an Iranian flag, nationalist slogans and anti-U.S. and anti-Israel images.
"We are not sure if they are really Iranians," Raff said of the ICA, "but they are supporters of the Iranian regime."
He said his firm was trying to identify the geographical origin of the attacks, but such tracing is notoriously difficult in cyberspace, where hackers can launch attacks from computers they control half a world away from their own location.
"At the moment, there is no way of knowing who these people really are," said Jason Glassberg, of the computer firm Casaba Security.
"They could be Iranians," he told The Times. "It could just as easily be a 13-year-old in New Jersey."
Politically motivated cybervandalism like the ICA defacement of the Twitter and Baidu sites is relatively common, and usually no more than a nuisance. For example, Islamic hacker groups, many of them apparently based in Turkey, defaced Danish websites after a newspaper there published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in September 2005.
But ICA's most recent hack appears to be much more aggressive, said Mr. Raff. He said European newsblog site TechCrunch, and "hundreds" of other smaller sites that use WordPress had been compromised over the past two months. Visitors were surreptitiously redirected to a hacker-controlled website, where they were infected with a so-called Trojan downloader — a kind of malicious software that allows hackers to take control of the user's computer.
The Trojan was placed on the visitors' computers by exploiting well-known vulnerabilities in several widely used software packages, including Adobe PDF, Java and Internet Explorer.
Read the full article at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/26/hackers-shopping-malware-network/
By Washington Times' reporter Shaun Waterman
According to a Washington Times article, a hacker group calling itself the Iranian Cyber Army is gathering a network of infected computers, and selling it to cybercriminals to spread spam and malicious software.
Aviv Raff, of the computer security firm Seculert, told The Washington Times that the group was exploiting a vulnerability in the popular blogging software program WordPress to gain control of unsuspecting Internet users' computers and add them to its network — known as a botnet, or robot network — of infected machines. He said the botnet, one of hundreds controlled by hacker gangs and cybercrime syndicates all over the world, could be used to launch cyber-attacks against Tehran's enemies.
Most researchers regard the Iranian Cyber Army (ICA) as "hacktivists" — politically motivated pro-Iranian hackers — and there is no evidence they are linked to the Tehran government. Almost a year ago, a group using that name attacked U.S.-based social networking platform Twitter, and then Chinese search engine Baidu, briefly diverting visitors to those Web pages to a different page decorated with an Iranian flag, nationalist slogans and anti-U.S. and anti-Israel images.
"We are not sure if they are really Iranians," Raff said of the ICA, "but they are supporters of the Iranian regime."
He said his firm was trying to identify the geographical origin of the attacks, but such tracing is notoriously difficult in cyberspace, where hackers can launch attacks from computers they control half a world away from their own location.
"At the moment, there is no way of knowing who these people really are," said Jason Glassberg, of the computer firm Casaba Security.
"They could be Iranians," he told The Times. "It could just as easily be a 13-year-old in New Jersey."
Politically motivated cybervandalism like the ICA defacement of the Twitter and Baidu sites is relatively common, and usually no more than a nuisance. For example, Islamic hacker groups, many of them apparently based in Turkey, defaced Danish websites after a newspaper there published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in September 2005.
But ICA's most recent hack appears to be much more aggressive, said Mr. Raff. He said European newsblog site TechCrunch, and "hundreds" of other smaller sites that use WordPress had been compromised over the past two months. Visitors were surreptitiously redirected to a hacker-controlled website, where they were infected with a so-called Trojan downloader — a kind of malicious software that allows hackers to take control of the user's computer.
The Trojan was placed on the visitors' computers by exploiting well-known vulnerabilities in several widely used software packages, including Adobe PDF, Java and Internet Explorer.
Read the full article at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/26/hackers-shopping-malware-network/
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Common Cybersecurity-themed Myths
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has debunked several commons myths associated with cybersecurity that may influence online security practices.
Myth: Anti-virus software and firewalls are 100% effective.
*Truth: Anti-virus software and firewalls are important elements to protecting your information (see Understanding Anti-Virus Software and Understanding Firewalls for more information). However, neither of these elements are guaranteed to protect you from an attack. Combining these technologies with good security habits is the best way to reduce your risk.
Myth: Once software is installed on your computer, you do not have to worry about it anymore.
*Truth: Vendors may release patches or updated versions of software to address problems or fix vulnerabilities (see Understanding Patches for more information). You should install the patches as soon as possible; some software even offers the option to obtain updates automatically. Making sure that you have the latest virus definitions for your anti-virus software is especially important.
Myth: There is nothing important on your machine, so you do not need to protect it.
*Truth: Your opinion about what is important may differ from an attacker's opinion. If you have personal or financial data on your computer, attackers may be able to collect it and use it for their own financial gain. Even if you do not store that kind of information on your computer, an attacker who can gain control of your computer may be able to use it in attacks against other people (see Understanding Denial-of-Service Attacks and Understanding Hidden Threats: Rootkits and Botnets for more information).
Myth: Attackers only target people with money.
*Truth: Anyone can become a victim of identity theft. Attackers look for the biggest reward for the least amount of effort, so they typically target databases that store information about many people. If your information happens to be in the database, it could be collected and used for malicious purposes. It is important to pay attention to your credit information so that you can minimize any potential damage (see Preventing and Responding to Identity Theft for more information).
Myth: When computers slow down, it means that they are old and should be replaced.
*Truth: It is possible that running newer or larger software programs on an older computer could lead to slow performance, but you may just need to replace or upgrade a particular component (memory, operating system, CD or DVD drive, etc.). Another possibility is that there are other processes or programs running in the background. If your computer has suddenly become slower, you may be experiencing a denial-of-service attack or have spyware on your machine (see Understanding Denial-of-Service Attacks and Recognizing and Avoiding Spyware for more information).
Check out more information from the DHS here.
Myth: Anti-virus software and firewalls are 100% effective.
*Truth: Anti-virus software and firewalls are important elements to protecting your information (see Understanding Anti-Virus Software and Understanding Firewalls for more information). However, neither of these elements are guaranteed to protect you from an attack. Combining these technologies with good security habits is the best way to reduce your risk.
Myth: Once software is installed on your computer, you do not have to worry about it anymore.
*Truth: Vendors may release patches or updated versions of software to address problems or fix vulnerabilities (see Understanding Patches for more information). You should install the patches as soon as possible; some software even offers the option to obtain updates automatically. Making sure that you have the latest virus definitions for your anti-virus software is especially important.
Myth: There is nothing important on your machine, so you do not need to protect it.
*Truth: Your opinion about what is important may differ from an attacker's opinion. If you have personal or financial data on your computer, attackers may be able to collect it and use it for their own financial gain. Even if you do not store that kind of information on your computer, an attacker who can gain control of your computer may be able to use it in attacks against other people (see Understanding Denial-of-Service Attacks and Understanding Hidden Threats: Rootkits and Botnets for more information).
Myth: Attackers only target people with money.
*Truth: Anyone can become a victim of identity theft. Attackers look for the biggest reward for the least amount of effort, so they typically target databases that store information about many people. If your information happens to be in the database, it could be collected and used for malicious purposes. It is important to pay attention to your credit information so that you can minimize any potential damage (see Preventing and Responding to Identity Theft for more information).
Myth: When computers slow down, it means that they are old and should be replaced.
*Truth: It is possible that running newer or larger software programs on an older computer could lead to slow performance, but you may just need to replace or upgrade a particular component (memory, operating system, CD or DVD drive, etc.). Another possibility is that there are other processes or programs running in the background. If your computer has suddenly become slower, you may be experiencing a denial-of-service attack or have spyware on your machine (see Understanding Denial-of-Service Attacks and Recognizing and Avoiding Spyware for more information).
Check out more information from the DHS here.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
UK Defense Review
Last August I posted a piece in which the headlines read: "The RAF will shrink to its smallest size since the First World War, under unprecedented cuts being proposed at the Ministry of Defense." [See: http://www.afa.org/PresidentsCorner/Notes/Notes_8-12-10.pdf] Many of my UK friends mildly (and rightly) chastised me for spreading press stories about the review … and urged I wait to see what comes from it.
This week the UK published its final report. [See: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf ] (Warning: it’s 75 pages long).
A fairly good summary of it comes from a Defense News piece by Andrew Chuter:
"The Strategic Defense and Security Review, unveiled Oct. 19 by Prime Minister David Cameron, stripped the armed forces of various capabilities, reduced military and civilian personnel numbers, and ushered in a restructuring of the Army.
Cameron told lawmakers that the 36.9 billion pound ($53.1 billion) defense budget was being cut in real terms by 8 percent over the next four years, but that he envisaged a possible increase in spending beyond that. The review said that Britain will in the future deploy no more than 30,000 troops overseas, including maritime and air support - two-thirds of the force deployed to Iraq in 2003. It will reduce the civilian MoD work force by about 25,000 and military personnel by about 17,000, both by 2015."
"All three services will see capabilities reduced, but the British Army has come off the lightest, mainly because it is embroiled deeper in the war in Afghanistan."
"The military's is heading toward a fast-jet fleet consisting solely of Typhoons and Lockheed Martin F-35s. The Harrier GR9 is being withdrawn from service beginning in 2011; the number of RAF Tornado GR4 strike aircraft will also be reduced as Eurofighter Typhoons arrive. The government decision to withdraw the GR9 and only start operating the F-35 in 2020 means the Royal Navy will have to take a capability holiday on carrier strike for the next 10 years.
The review said the MoD intended to operate a single type of F-35, not different land and naval variants."
"One of the two carriers being built by a BAE-led consortium for the Royal Navy will be fitted with catapult and arrestor gear, and is slated to arrive in 2020. The second carrier being built will be mothballed in a low state of readiness."
Several reactions to these cuts have come from a number of people whom I respect. Below my name is a compendium of their talking points.
For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn
President/CEO
Air Force Association
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The first thing that hit me was that the UK approach to developing future forces is similar to that of the US. Both countries are emphasizing force structure designed to deal with current conflicts (such as Afghanistan and Iraq) rather than the much more challenging and dangerous ones that will almost certainly occur in the future."
"Very high tech weaponry provides huge advantages to the United States and the UK and allows them to fight asymmetrically against enemies such as the Taliban rather than on a face-to-face basis where the advantage is minimal. And it actually turns out that the weaponry developed for demanding conventional conflicts has great utility in wars such as those in Afghanistan. One need only think of long range bombers and fighters, precision weapons that not only have great military utility but also reduce collateral damage dramatically, Global Position Systems, Imaging Satellites, and long duration unmanned vehicles to name just a few."
"The tone is similar to that of our Secretary of Defense [Robert Gates]. He talks about focusing on today’s wars and avoiding what he calls “next war-ite- is.” This is an extraordinarily dangerous approach for it assumes that the future will be like the present—which it has never been. And lying in the future are certainly enemies who are far more difficult threats than those of today.”
"I don't see, in the medium term (3-5 years), that the new UK posture will have any adverse affects on the US and British relationship. But it puts us on a joint course for the future which it makes it difficult to overcome serious threats with serious capabilities which will likely arise beyond the mid-term. I find this almost myopic focus on today to be quite troubling."
“The RAF has to be interoperable with the US … not just in systems, but doctrine, training, thought and strategies. It is in the US interest to have a strong “left wing” [to quote a former boss] to oppose oppression and safeguard freedom and democracy."
“The RAF has to be able to accomplish a wide range of missions … and continue to be a “Full-Service Air Force.” Right now many of the world’s Air Forces rely on the US for such things as … transport, intelligence, smart munitions, AAR, etc. We cannot be expected to embrace 2nd or 3rd world efforts from the UK and still call them a dependable ally.”
“There comes a time when the UK reaches a “Tipping Point” – when one of their elements of national power decays such that we no longer see them as having the same or similar world view as the US. It may be that it occurs in the military instrument of national power … and we just can’t define when that might be. If it happens, it will be bad for both the US and the UK. This force takes us much closer than before … as the overall level of forces is so small as to possibly make the UK a “bit player” on the world stage – especially against a regional power that might challenge Western interests.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week the UK published its final report. [See: http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191634.pdf ] (Warning: it’s 75 pages long).
A fairly good summary of it comes from a Defense News piece by Andrew Chuter:
"The Strategic Defense and Security Review, unveiled Oct. 19 by Prime Minister David Cameron, stripped the armed forces of various capabilities, reduced military and civilian personnel numbers, and ushered in a restructuring of the Army.
Cameron told lawmakers that the 36.9 billion pound ($53.1 billion) defense budget was being cut in real terms by 8 percent over the next four years, but that he envisaged a possible increase in spending beyond that. The review said that Britain will in the future deploy no more than 30,000 troops overseas, including maritime and air support - two-thirds of the force deployed to Iraq in 2003. It will reduce the civilian MoD work force by about 25,000 and military personnel by about 17,000, both by 2015."
"All three services will see capabilities reduced, but the British Army has come off the lightest, mainly because it is embroiled deeper in the war in Afghanistan."
"The military's is heading toward a fast-jet fleet consisting solely of Typhoons and Lockheed Martin F-35s. The Harrier GR9 is being withdrawn from service beginning in 2011; the number of RAF Tornado GR4 strike aircraft will also be reduced as Eurofighter Typhoons arrive. The government decision to withdraw the GR9 and only start operating the F-35 in 2020 means the Royal Navy will have to take a capability holiday on carrier strike for the next 10 years.
The review said the MoD intended to operate a single type of F-35, not different land and naval variants."
"One of the two carriers being built by a BAE-led consortium for the Royal Navy will be fitted with catapult and arrestor gear, and is slated to arrive in 2020. The second carrier being built will be mothballed in a low state of readiness."
Several reactions to these cuts have come from a number of people whom I respect. Below my name is a compendium of their talking points.
For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn
President/CEO
Air Force Association
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The first thing that hit me was that the UK approach to developing future forces is similar to that of the US. Both countries are emphasizing force structure designed to deal with current conflicts (such as Afghanistan and Iraq) rather than the much more challenging and dangerous ones that will almost certainly occur in the future."
"Very high tech weaponry provides huge advantages to the United States and the UK and allows them to fight asymmetrically against enemies such as the Taliban rather than on a face-to-face basis where the advantage is minimal. And it actually turns out that the weaponry developed for demanding conventional conflicts has great utility in wars such as those in Afghanistan. One need only think of long range bombers and fighters, precision weapons that not only have great military utility but also reduce collateral damage dramatically, Global Position Systems, Imaging Satellites, and long duration unmanned vehicles to name just a few."
"The tone is similar to that of our Secretary of Defense [Robert Gates]. He talks about focusing on today’s wars and avoiding what he calls “next war-ite- is.” This is an extraordinarily dangerous approach for it assumes that the future will be like the present—which it has never been. And lying in the future are certainly enemies who are far more difficult threats than those of today.”
"I don't see, in the medium term (3-5 years), that the new UK posture will have any adverse affects on the US and British relationship. But it puts us on a joint course for the future which it makes it difficult to overcome serious threats with serious capabilities which will likely arise beyond the mid-term. I find this almost myopic focus on today to be quite troubling."
“The RAF has to be interoperable with the US … not just in systems, but doctrine, training, thought and strategies. It is in the US interest to have a strong “left wing” [to quote a former boss] to oppose oppression and safeguard freedom and democracy."
“The RAF has to be able to accomplish a wide range of missions … and continue to be a “Full-Service Air Force.” Right now many of the world’s Air Forces rely on the US for such things as … transport, intelligence, smart munitions, AAR, etc. We cannot be expected to embrace 2nd or 3rd world efforts from the UK and still call them a dependable ally.”
“There comes a time when the UK reaches a “Tipping Point” – when one of their elements of national power decays such that we no longer see them as having the same or similar world view as the US. It may be that it occurs in the military instrument of national power … and we just can’t define when that might be. If it happens, it will be bad for both the US and the UK. This force takes us much closer than before … as the overall level of forces is so small as to possibly make the UK a “bit player” on the world stage – especially against a regional power that might challenge Western interests.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, October 14, 2010
House Cyber Security Caucus
Congressman Jim Langevin (RI-D) and Congressman Mike McCaul (R-TX) founded the first-ever House Cyber Security Caucus in September 2008. The two were actively engaged in identifying challenges and making recommendations concerning cybersecurity to the Administration. This Caucus provides an opportunity for members of Congress to get involved in the subject and discuss the challenges in securing cyberspace.
Follow their initiative here.
Follow their initiative here.
Cybersecurity Defense
Almost every Internet user is at risk, rather it be a consumer or a global corporation. The increase in threats related to social networking sites, banking security, online shopping and attacks targeting users, businesses and even applications have made the Internet a potentially dangerous landscape.
Every year, cyber crimes cost billions of dollars to repair systems hit by attacks and loss in productivity because of disruptions.
In 2006, 8.3 million Americans were the victims of identity theft.
In the first half of 2009, there were more than 40,000 cyber attacks against the Department of Defense. According to Brig. Gen. John Davis, Deputy Commander, Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations, Defense Department, these attacks cost the Pentagon more than $100 million to clean up.
And according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), consumers and businesses lost $5.8 billion in 2009 due to cyber crime, and more than $100 million from US banks.
The FBI has a department dedicated to investigating high-tech crimes, including cyber-based terrorism, computer intrusions, online predators, piracy and cyber frauds.
On their site, they provide a great deal of information regarding protection and security, past cyber crime cases and the types of threats and scams.
Knowledge is a key opposition to cybersecurity threats. Follow this link to read examples of scams.
Every year, cyber crimes cost billions of dollars to repair systems hit by attacks and loss in productivity because of disruptions.
In 2006, 8.3 million Americans were the victims of identity theft.
In the first half of 2009, there were more than 40,000 cyber attacks against the Department of Defense. According to Brig. Gen. John Davis, Deputy Commander, Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations, Defense Department, these attacks cost the Pentagon more than $100 million to clean up.
And according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), consumers and businesses lost $5.8 billion in 2009 due to cyber crime, and more than $100 million from US banks.
The FBI has a department dedicated to investigating high-tech crimes, including cyber-based terrorism, computer intrusions, online predators, piracy and cyber frauds.
On their site, they provide a great deal of information regarding protection and security, past cyber crime cases and the types of threats and scams.
Knowledge is a key opposition to cybersecurity threats. Follow this link to read examples of scams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
