Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Apple Macs are silently being infected with ultra stealthy malware, on both Intel and M1

 

5 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

"mAcS dOnT gET vIrUSeS!!"

- almost every Apple person ever

I don't understand why people are upset by this. I don't have any numbers but a big chunk of the people buying Macs (and computers in general) don't know much about this and a lot of them decide to buy a Mac because it never fails, because it has a retina display so it's better than any non-Mac display, and yes, because it doesn't get viruses. Heck I've even heard a seller say that to a customer once so you can't deny that statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SubTract said:

But apples inability to publicly acknowledge problems will mean that this will likely remain a problem unless they themselves address it.

One the other hand, Apple actually publishes patched vulnerabilities and gives credit to the person/individual who discovered such bugs 

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222

There is more that meets the eye
I see the soul that is inside

 

Making Windows Defender as good or even better than paid options

Link to post
Share on other sites

To argue Mac security is as insecure as Windows is real silly. macOS is Unix. *nix is so extremely more secure than Windows that it’s not even funny.

 

If one was to install malware on a Mac, you literally need to ignore a tsunami of warnings, say you’re cool with installing software from an unsigned or revoked source and then go into settings and individually grant the malware access to disk access, keyboard access, accessibility, network, etc one by one. You’d have to be an absolute moron. 
 

What does Windows do? It pops up a magic UAC GIVE ME ROOT button and that’s it.

MacBook Pro 16

i9-9980HK - Radeon Pro 5500m 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 2TB NVME - many dongles

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

To argue Mac security is as insecure as Windows is real silly. macOS is Unix. *nix is so extremely more secure than Windows that it’s not even funny.

 

If one was to install malware on a Mac, you literally need to ignore a tsunami of warnings, say you’re cool with installing software from an unsigned or revoked source and then go into settings and individually grant the malware access to disk access, keyboard access, accessibility, network, etc one by one. You’d have to be an absolute moron. 
 

What does Windows do? It pops up a magic UAC GIVE ME ROOT button and that’s it.

No to decrease your arguements validity but this malware had a valid signed certificate. I'm sure that's not common however

PLEASE QUOTE ME IF YOU ARE REPLYING TO ME

LinusWare Dev | NotCPUCores Dev

Desktop Build: Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4.0GHz, AsRock Fatal1ty X370 Professional Gaming, 32GB Corsair DDR4 @ 3000MHz, RX480 8GB OC, Benq XL2730 1440p 144Hz FS

Retro Build: Intel Pentium III @ 500 MHz, Dell Optiplex G1 Full AT Tower, 768MB SDRAM @ 133MHz, Integrated Graphics, Generic 1024x768 60Hz Monitor


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

you literally need to ignore a tsunami of warnings, say you’re cool with installing software from an unsigned or revoked source

tsunami = all of one so...

 

A lot of power users also turn off requiring signed applications as well and if you grant an installer permissions to install nothing stops as part of that installer to go change other settings during that install. There are some more protected areas of Mac OS that you can't change as easily but once you granted something root, even temporarily your hosed regardless as you've just allowed it to do as much as possible that it wishes to do including exploiting any other vulnerabilities that require root.

 

Hit yourself in the hand with a hammer, hit yourself in the hand with a mallet. Both still hurt.

 

20 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

What does Windows do? It pops up a magic UAC GIVE ME ROOT button and that’s it.

Not true if you actually leave Defender on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, leadeater said:

tsunami = all of one so...

 

A lot of power users also turn off requiring signed applications as well and if you grant an installer permissions to install nothing stops as part of that installer to go change other settings during that install. There are some more protected areas of Mac OS that you can't change as easily but once you granted something root, even temporarily your hosed regardless as you've just allowed it to do as much as possible that it wishes to do including exploiting any other vulnerabilities that require root.

 

Hit yourself in the hand with a hammer, hit yourself in the hand with a mallet. Both still hurt.

 

Not true if you actually leave Defender on.

It's more than one. You need to click the initial run an app downloaded outside the ecosystem message, then the one saying "unknown developer" if they don't have a certificate, then you need to right click after that warning yet again and hit run on the context menu, then you need to click through warnings if it comes back as a signature match for malware and so on.

 

...all of that is still ignoring the fact that you need to go into security settings and manually enable all of the access check boxes for said piece of malware.

 

Also as far as I'm aware, there's no way for an app to gain root access unless you fire up terminal and launch as such. Even then, sudo open is still in user territory and typing out the full location of an app to truly launch it as root is way out of the realm of possibility for a regular user to do by mistake.

MacBook Pro 16

i9-9980HK - Radeon Pro 5500m 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 2TB NVME - many dongles

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

"mAcS dOnT gET vIrUSeS!!"

- almost every Apple person ever

i've never claimed that lol and people who do are misinformed

Phone: iPhone SE 2020 | 64GB iOS
Main Laptop: MacBook Pro 15" Late 2011 | Core i7 2675QM | 16GB RAM | 250GB SSD | macOS

PC: Supermicro X8DT3 | 2x Xeon X5650 | R9 290X | 32GB RAM500GB SSD | Bitfenix Whisper 850W | Windows

Link to post
Share on other sites

mine isn't infected... it would be good to know how this malware is spread. 

 

237473181_ScreenShot2021-02-23at05_29_21.png.80b0db9f4b2c99382bc4f4f7b2a59742.png

Phone: iPhone SE 2020 | 64GB iOS
Main Laptop: MacBook Pro 15" Late 2011 | Core i7 2675QM | 16GB RAM | 250GB SSD | macOS

PC: Supermicro X8DT3 | 2x Xeon X5650 | R9 290X | 32GB RAM500GB SSD | Bitfenix Whisper 850W | Windows

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

It's more than one. You need to click the initial run an app downloaded outside the ecosystem message, then the one saying "unknown developer" if they don't have a certificate, then you need to right click after that warning yet again and hit run on the context menu, then you need to click through warnings if it comes back as a signature match for malware and so on.

Again that's if you haven't already gone in to security and changed the global setting, which many power users actually do. Once you suffer the pain of having to do that once you tend to go change the setting that made it like that, human nature, "I don't like that so I'll change it".

 

51 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

 

Also as far as I'm aware, there's no way for an app to gain root access unless you fire up terminal and launch as such. Even then, sudo open is still in user territory and typing out the full location of an app to truly launch it as root is way out of the realm of possibility for a regular user to do by mistake.

If an application is using a packaged install script it will ask to be granted root, from that point RIP. I managed software that actually does this btw, I think they finally updated to not do it that way but it was for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

  As much as I dislike Apple's corporate behaviour, security/privacy (the two go hand-in-hand IMHO) is still a legimate reason to buy a Mac. There is still going to be more PC malware than Mac malware. It infuriates me that Apple haters will take any opportunity to imply that "almost every Apple person ever" is stupid and brainwashed and doesn't have a clue how computers work.

 

That said, claiming that Macs don't get viruses is clearly ludicrous. I don't understand how anyone believes that in this day and age.

I guess some of us, me included, just have different type of humour.

Every opportunity to laugh at something is good to do it. Simple.

Perhaps, it can trigger others, but it is just a tiny move to bring some joy, right?

I do not require glory, only results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IAmAndre said:

a lot of them decide to buy a Mac because it never fails [...] Heck I've even heard a seller say that to a customer once so you can't deny that statement.

I agree.

 

I do not require glory, only results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

That said, claiming that Macs don't get viruses is clearly ludicrous. I don't understand how anyone believes that in this day and age.

A left over from Windows XP days, when just having a Win XP machine connected to the internet in a lot of cases led to the computer being infected by worms and viruses. Back then this was highly unlikely on a Mac or Linux machine, partly because of security by obscurity and by the way the OSs are designed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

To argue Mac security is as insecure as Windows is real silly. macOS is Unix. *nix is so extremely more secure than Windows that it’s not even funny.

 

If one was to install malware on a Mac, you literally need to ignore a tsunami of warnings, say you’re cool with installing software from an unsigned or revoked source and then go into settings and individually grant the malware access to disk access, keyboard access, accessibility, network, etc one by one. You’d have to be an absolute moron. 
 

What does Windows do? It pops up a magic UAC GIVE ME ROOT button and that’s it.

This is such a common misconception. Unix is not more secure. You're all assuming Unix is secure because its 80% market share is being run on servers by trained professionals. Opposed to Windows 80% desktop market share being predominantly run by casual users with often less than zero knowledge about computer things.

 

Yes, servers running Unix may be more high value targets, but their non-interactive nature and the fact they are predominantly operated by professionals means it's much harder to brute force your way in. Often it's easier to do it through exploitation of bad deployment or known unpatched vulnerability than tricking the operator.

 

Now lets apply that logic with Unix (Linux) on desktop operated by a normie. When users are determined to run something, no amount of UAC or passwords that they need to input will stop them from giving elevated access to some malware. Or input their credentials into a phishing e-mail. Or bunch of other scenarios that just don't happen on Unix servers because of non-interactivity and ultimately who's running them, a professional.

 

There is also usability factor. General users expect system to have a balance of usability and security. That's pretty much Windows 10 in its current form. All Linux versions are leaning far too hard to security side which is among things why casuals don't Like Linux. It's too fiddly and asks for permissions too much to a point users just type that damn thing in or have password "1234" just to get past it faster.

 

As for the second paragraph, ever wondered why Mac only has like 2% of the dekstop OS market share? Well, there's your answer. Windows is just easier to deal with in terms of just getting it on any system and running it whatever way you want without the hassle of Linux, but with enough of ease of use that they don't go with MacOS. Android is Unix based and look at what kind of malwarefest it is unless you bolt it down and lock it out. It's always all about balance between usability and security. And you simply can't have both at the same time. Windows has actual Admin, User and Guest hierarchy, yet no one uses it because it's same pain in the ass to deal with as it is on Linux.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3600MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Ah yes, Browser. my favourite operating system...

You kid but nowadays they might as well be one 😛

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

What is scaling and how does it work? Asus PB287Q unboxing! Console alternatives :D Watch Netflix with Kodi on Arch Linux Sharing folders over the internet using SSH Beginner's Guide To LTT (by iamdarkyoshi)

Sauron'stm Product Scores:

Spoiler

Just a list of my personal scores for some products, in no particular order, with brief comments. I just got the idea to do them so they aren't many for now :)

Don't take these as complete reviews or final truths - they are just my personal impressions on products I may or may not have used, summed up in a couple of sentences and a rough score. All scores take into account the unit's price and time of release, heavily so, therefore don't expect absolute performance to be reflected here.

 

-Lenovo Thinkpad X220 - [8/10]

Spoiler

A durable and reliable machine that is relatively lightweight, has all the hardware it needs to never feel sluggish and has a great IPS matte screen. Downsides are mostly due to its age, most notably the screen resolution of 1366x768 and usb 2.0 ports.

 

-Apple Macbook (2015) - [Garbage -/10]

Spoiler

From my perspective, this product has no redeeming factors given its price and the competition. It is underpowered, overpriced, impractical due to its single port and is made redundant even by Apple's own iPad pro line.

 

-OnePlus X - [7/10]

Spoiler

A good phone for the price. It does everything I (and most people) need without being sluggish and has no particularly bad flaws. The lack of recent software updates and relatively barebones feature kit (most notably the lack of 5GHz wifi, biometric sensors and backlight for the capacitive buttons) prevent it from being exceptional.

 

-Microsoft Surface Book 2 - [Garbage - -/10]

Spoiler

Overpriced and rushed, offers nothing notable compared to the competition, doesn't come with an adequate charger despite the premium price. Worse than the Macbook for not even offering the small plus sides of having macOS. Buy a Razer Blade if you want high performance in a (relatively) light package.

 

-Intel Core i7 2600/k - [9/10]

Spoiler

Quite possibly Intel's best product launch ever. It had all the bleeding edge features of the time, it came with a very significant performance improvement over its predecessor and it had a soldered heatspreader, allowing for efficient cooling and great overclocking. Even the "locked" version could be overclocked through the multiplier within (quite reasonable) limits.

 

-Apple iPad Pro - [5/10]

Spoiler

A pretty good product, sunk by its price (plus the extra cost of the physical keyboard and the pencil). Buy it if you don't mind the Apple tax and are looking for a very light office machine with an excellent digitizer. Particularly good for rich students. Bad for cheap tinkerers like myself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Again that's if you haven't already gone in to security and changed the global setting, which many power users actually do. Once you suffer the pain of having to do that once you tend to go change the setting that made it like that, human nature, "I don't like that so I'll change it".

 

If an application is using a packaged install script it will ask to be granted root, from that point RIP. I managed software that actually does this btw, I think they finally updated to not do it that way but it was for years.

You can't disable a global setting in the security UI (they removed it), or permanently turn off GateKeeper for that matter anymore. It's been like that for a while, I think with the original release of Catalina? You can go into terminal and disable it for the current session but it will immediately enable again next time you boot. You would also still need to go into settings and individually enable like 10 separate permissions by hand for the malware too just for it to function properly.

 

Regardless... you can't argue that Microsoft's security policy is as good as *nix... Out of the box macOS is Fort Knox with app policy. Couple that with the baked in hardware encryption, sandboxing, certificate process, lack of data harvesting and so on and it's no contest. While I was poking fun earlier, Windows literally throws all security to the wayside with single click UAC or right click run as admin. It's a very stupid approach.

 

33 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

This is such a common misconception. Unix is not more secure. You're all assuming Unix is secure because its 80% market share is being run on servers by trained professionals. Opposed to Windows 80% desktop market share being predominantly run by casual users with often less than zero knowledge about computer things.

 

Yes, servers running Unix may be more high value targets, but their non-interactive nature and the fact they are predominantly operated by professionals means it's much harder to brute force your way in. Often it's easier to do it through exploitation of bad deployment or known unpatched vulnerability than tricking the operator.

 

Now lets apply that logic with Unix (Linux) on desktop operated by a normie. When users are determined to run something, no amount of UAC or passwords that they need to input will stop them from giving elevated access to some malware. Or input their credentials into a phishing e-mail. Or bunch of other scenarios that just don't happen on Unix servers because of non-interactivity and ultimately who's running them, a professional.

 

There is also usability factor. General users expect system to have a balance of usability and security. That's pretty much Windows 10 in its current form. All Linux versions are leaning far too hard to security side which is among things why casuals don't Like Linux. It's too fiddly and asks for permissions too much to a point users just type that damn thing in or have password "1234" just to get past it faster.

 

As for the second paragraph, ever wondered why Mac only has like 2% of the dekstop OS market share? Well, there's your answer. Windows is just easier to deal with in terms of just getting it on any system and running it whatever way you want without the hassle of Linux, but with enough of ease of use that they don't go with MacOS. Android is Unix based and look at what kind of malwarefest it is unless you bolt it down and lock it out. It's always all about balance between usability and security. And you simply can't have both at the same time. Windows has actual Admin, User and Guest hierarchy, yet no one uses it because it's same pain in the ass to deal with as it is on Linux.

It is more secure by design. You can't, and I mean cannot have a piece of software run as root in macOS unless you fire up terminal, find the complete directory tree, copy and paste said location of whatever you're trying to run and input a sudo command. Otherwise any application is running as a user.

 

How do you give a Windows app root? You click "okay" when the window pops up.

 

Also Unix is not Linux, Mac marketshare is approaching 15% in the US, 8% worldwide and Android is Linux. Android also sandboxes and malware has no access to root... only the permissions you grant it. There's some fringe cases of specific devices being exploited with privilege escalations but it's extremely rare.

 

 

MacBook Pro 16

i9-9980HK - Radeon Pro 5500m 8GB - 32GB DDR4 - 2TB NVME - many dongles

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

You can't disable a global setting in the security UI (they removed it), or permanently turn off GateKeeper for that matter anymore. It's been like that for a while, I think with the original release of Catalina?

Sound about right, was also around the time that mentioned app got updated to change how it installed.

 

8 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Couple that with the baked in hardware encryption, sandboxing, certificate process,

All things both Windows and Defender do, other than hardware encryption which you can use with Bitlocker but that's optional rather than on by design. That said storage encryption doesn't protect the system from malware at all.

 

8 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

While I was poking fun earlier, Windows literally throws all security to the wayside with single click UAC or right click run as admin. It's a very stupid approach.

No it doesn't lol. Defender will block anything known before you even get the UAC, if you get the UAC first and it extracted an embedded executable and tries to run it then also blocked. Defender has been Sandboxed since late 2018 FYI.

 

GateKeeper does have a few extra features but if you care about flexibility and freedom to use your computer how you like then those make it worse in that respect. Better at handling the lowest common denominator user however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No it doesn't lol. Defender will block anything known before you even get the UAC, if you get the UAC first and it extracted an embedded executable and tries to run it then also blocked.

These days, Defender seems to block most things which don't come either from Microsoft or their pathetic excuse for an app store.

It also obscures the "run anyway" button behind a link called "Show more details", so less computer-literate folks will find it harder to find.

In particular, if it's a browser then it will claim that you are putting your security at risk by not using Edge and so on.

 

I wonder how many people have become completely desensitized to the warnings by this insanity.

Share your favourite custom styling rules (CSS) for websites! linustechtips.com/topic/1288887-share-your-favourite-custom-styling-rules-...

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

pythonmegapixel

into tech, public transport and architecture // amateur programmer // youtuber // beginner photographer

Thanks for reading all this by the way!

By the way, my desktop is a docked laptop. Get over it, No seriously, I have an exterrnal monitor, keyboard, mouse, headset, ethernet and cooling fans all connected. Using it feels no different to a desktop, it works for several hours if the power goes out, and disconnecting just a few cables gives me something I can take on the go. There's enough power for all games I play and it even copes with basic (and some not-so-basic) video editing. Give it a go - you might just love it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, leadeater said:

Again that's if you haven't already gone in to security and changed the global setting, which many power users actually do. Once you suffer the pain of having to do that once you tend to go change the setting that made it like that, human nature, "I don't like that so I'll change it".

That's a silly argument and you know it.

Someone: You have to ignore a lot of warnings in order to even get to this point.

You: Nuh uh. If you have already disabled these X number of things then you don't get a warning.

 

Sure, but when you make generalized statements you typically talk about what most people do. Most Mac users have probably not gone into multiple settings and disabled the various security features. I am not sure where you got the statistics that "many power users do" from either.

By the same logic nothing is secure because no matter what type of defense you come up with someone can just say "no that doesn't matter if a user has disabled it, which many do".

 

33 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No it doesn't lol. Defender will block anything known before you even get the UAC, if you get the UAC first and it extracted an embedded executable and tries to run it then also blocked. Defender has been Sandboxed since late 2018 FYI.

No, Windows Defender doesn't block anything if you have it turned off, which many people have.

See how ridiculous your argument is now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's a silly argument and you know it.

Someone: You have to ignore a lot of warnings in order to even get to this point.

No it isn't, fat load of good a one time protection will do you later if the user doesn't like it and turns it off (one time as in "well that's annoying, I'm disabling it"). Granted sounds like that ability has been removed now though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No it isn't, fat load of good a one time protection will do you later if the user doesn't like it and turns it off. Granted sounds like that ability has been removed now though.

That is assuming someone has disabled it. It's completely asinine to say a generalized statement is wrong just because it might not be true if some users have changed the default settings in some way. When you make generalized statements you typically talk about the default settings or most common settings. In this case you are saying a generalized statement is wrong just because some users might (a big assumption from your end) have disabled some security features.

 

It's not a one-time protection either. Something isn't a "one time protection" just because you can permanently disable it. By that logic Windows Defender is also a "one time protection".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, it'd sure be nice to go into one of these threads and gain technical insight rather than the same BS apple-hate flame wars that show up in every thread where the company gets mentioned.

 

I'd ask mods to step in, but since @leadeaterseems to be one, and can't seem to keep from getting into pissing matches with @LAwLz in EVERY thread, I guess there's no point there.

 

Here's a clue to your job...when someone posts this in the #$#$@!$# news forum..where it's supposed to be more serious talk:image.png.f7b54a39ad81296340d86d1936c64db1.png

You give them a warning for trying to derail a thread or be a troll...and if they do it again, you @!@# ban them.

🖥️ Motherboard: MSI A320M PRO-VH PLUS  ** Processor: AMD Ryzen 2600 3.4 GHz ** Video Card: Nvidia GeForce 1070 TI 8GB Zotac 1070ti 🖥️
🖥️ Memory: 32GB DDR4 2400  ** Power Supply: 650 Watts Power Supply Thermaltake +80 Bronze Thermaltake PSU 🖥️

🍎 2012 iMac i7 27";  2007 MBP 2.2 GHZ; Power Mac G5 Dual 2GHZ; B&W G3; Quadra 650; Mac SE 🍎

🍎 iPad Air2; iPhone 5s; AppleTV 4k 🍎

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It's completely asinine to say a generalized statement is wrong

No I didn't, other than "tsunami of warnings" that I did refute because it isn't. Sure hyperbole was being used but it's no major amount more than Windows, being one UAC prompt if Defender has already allowed it otherwise you'll be dealing with Defender prompts first.

 

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

When you make generalized statements you typically talk about the default settings or most common settings

Yes which is why I said power users because these are the ones that most often run in to problems with these default security settings and inevitably end up disabling them through frustration and impact to workflow. Are you a developer or DevOps engineer, do you use CI/CD tools and run builds and Vagrant/VM instances on your Mac with other custom tools either inhouse and otherwise, then you'll like strike issues with default Mac OS security settings.

 

The biggest security weakness is the person at the keyboard, if EULA's and humans habits around those and installers has taught us is that "Next, yes to everything" is largely how those are dealt with with near zero reading of what is happening. <-- Power users and normal people alike.

 

The other thing I sort of object to is the ignoring of Defender and what it does but then GateKeeper is added to how Mac OS is more secure, either include Defender and GateKeeper or exclude both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

I'd ask mods to step in, but since @leadeaterseems to be one, and can't seem to keep from getting into pissing matches with @LAwLz in EVERY thread, I guess there's no point there.

They don't have to jump in and argue either and others don't need to make over zealous and incorrect claims about OS security compared to another and completely ignore features that the other one actually does have that were said to not have.

 

Pointing out such failures is in fact a technical discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Video Beagle said:

Here's a clue to your job...when someone posts this in the #$#$@!$# news forum..where it's supposed to be more serious talk:

We do not moderate topics we are commenting in, if you see something that should be reviewed you need to report it, if you don't then it's got an extremely high chance of not being dealt with or seen. Reports are largely how issues are brought to the attention of the moderation team, these come from community members.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FakeKGB said:

"mAcS dOnT gET vIrUSeS!!"

- almost every Apple person ever

elephants

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×