The complexity and sophistication of this virus is astounding. Whoever introduce this virus into the world have already open a pandora box. Soon other nations with credible cyber war capability like China and India will come up with their own version of Cyber missile.
Stuxnet malware is 'weapon' out to destroy
- Thread starter Awang se
- Start date
I'm struggling to see why this is getting so much attention. After all its not the first time this has happened.
The US selectively collapsed Iraqs comms and civilian control infrastrucure by using purpose built bots in 1999
They killed and managed what comms paths were available for the entire utilities infrastructure and their air traffic control systems. one of the triggers for the Iraqi airforce "flight" to Iran was the fact that all air traffic control was delaminated. they lost their utilities through selective overloading of the grid by rerouting loads via the control systems.
The main difference being that the US event was triggered by a known conflict escalation. this was unsolicited. The capability and issues however are not.
what has changed is the human side of triggering this - not the tech capability.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Don't know about that. I thought US does that by on site infitrators who managed to tap into the network.
localhost127
Member
infiltration could be (and usually is) as simple as leaving a few strategically placed usb thumb drives around in the facility parking lot...same goes for outside of banks.
having been involved with automotive control systems (+scada) in the past (from a networking standpoint), it's almost laughable the lack of security that is actually deployed. not to mention most lines/systems are proofed-out of a specific software package at a certain patch level. with new security patches deployed almost daily (re: windows OS), it is too difficult for 24/7 mfg lines to find the down-time to incorporate security updates and the QA testing that is required before going production. as a result, many lines, once deployed and once operational, will never see said patches or security fixes, because the primary concern is generally timing and getting the line functional --- and once it is functional, no one wants to touch it and possibly break it / cause an outage...let alone actually getting downtime windows to perform said upgrades.
when these lines operated on their own proprietary protocols / comm buses, it wasn't so much of a big deal. but with converged services, migration to ip and other networking standards, it's ripe for the pickings...
in an earlier life I moonlighted in IT Security .
I was regularly called out to one of Australias largest car manufacturers to electronically hose down their servers as they were infected with viruses. The viruses would shut down the robots on the production line and cost them something like $50k an hour in lost production and on costs
they were regularly infected because they had appallingly bad on site security, and people used to insert USB's and Floppy Disks that were infected. The production systems were not firewalled againts the operations network and admin network, so all would die.
most IT breaches happen from within, but this issue of inserting virii into control systems is not new.
I was regularly called out to one of Australias largest car manufacturers to electronically hose down their servers as they were infected with viruses. The viruses would shut down the robots on the production line and cost them something like $50k an hour in lost production and on costs
they were regularly infected because they had appallingly bad on site security, and people used to insert USB's and Floppy Disks that were infected. The production systems were not firewalled againts the operations network and admin network, so all would die.
most IT breaches happen from within, but this issue of inserting virii into control systems is not new.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
To the bad guys out there: make sure to update your printer drivers!
Gotta ask why if this is possible was there a need to bomb communication targets in the latest gulf war if they could and had shut them all down in 99? Seems a waste of millions (or even billions depeding on exactly what they bombed) of both US and Iraqi funds if a simple virus would of achieved it?
Compromising the networks, influencing loads along nodes, redirecting traffic through such nodes so as to cause selective congestion etc is part of the C4 delamination process.
bombing the crap out of them at a later stage (and selective bombing) is decapitatiion.
although mutually sympathetic taskings, both are very different in their intent.
look at it through the prism of day 1-5 of a war.
Beatmaster
New Member
Being a IT specialist or network IT guy does not mean anything.
My sister in law works at the Kaspersky Labs in Den Bosch where she works on patches to catch the latest virus outbreaks, wich in some cases are true pieces of art.
I did have many conversations about virusses and malware with her as she has many years of exp in these matters, and from what i understand is that:
No matter how good your IT network/Systems are secured if its made up out of codes then it can be broken.
Also its a know fact that most antivirus/ Firewall and other security related companies are pretty quick in catching a virus and make it "undone" this takes hours or at max a few days (Unless its really a nasty virus that did spread to mutch and has to mutch "payload & defence" options.
Non the less, viruses, bots, worms and such nasty pieces of code can do millions of damage to networks and it systems in a matter of minutes upon infecting.
Bottomline the damage has already been done before it can be solved.
Golden rule in antimalware and security world is: The security system in general always have to catch up.
So this applies to cyber warfare as well, if a nation like china or any other nation that has high it infrasturcture and knowlegd then it can mount a programmed attack anywhere, wich will cause a great deal of damage no matter how good you are secured.
I know there might be some discussion about it and there might be people that think differendly but keep in mind that a hacker or rogue programmer will always hand out the first hit.
And depending on your security and your internal IT infrastructure the outcome is that you have damage and that vital info can be stolen/ destroyed or even altered as has been proven in the past.
It does not take a genuis to hack even a freaking 14 year old kid was able to hack nasa, esa and the national bank of the USA.
And i assume that those organistations do have a good security and that they do know what they are doing right?
And yes having a attacking bot can be dangerous specially in the right hands, but IMO defences against such programs and codes are just useless as defences and firewalls get crushed so fast that they are simply not worth the time to install them. (Sure granted they keep out most attacks and they contribute greatly to a secured system) but we are not talking about some script kiddy who try's his luck....we are talking about cyber warfare with the aim to destroy your intel capabilities, so in that regard the best defence would be monitoring surviance systems that can track codes and programs before they even reach the networks or targetted systems.
Like Norton and Kaspersky are doing on their End Point protection suits.
Monitor and tag each file, code, program or command with a unique id to prevent it from executing or altering info UNLESS you give the specific go for it.
This works great for data that comes from the outside world, however for dangers from its own network that demands more security from the people that acctually do work with the systems as its in my POV not acceptable that personel from big organisations are allowed to spread virusses willing or unwilling by mobile media...
Anyway long story short.......
If a nation specializes in cyber warfare then 99% of every nation out there has a problem.
Atm europa has a huge lead over the US when it comes to IT technological infrastructure and it has many dangers to face and many challenges to overcome before you can effectivly stop a rogue attack.
Now imagin the US wich has in most states a lot of catching up to do to even match the EU common standards, so how the hell will they effective stop a serious cyber attack? if they are always at least one step behind? As has been proven since the day the pc did distibuted the very first virus?
My sister in law works at the Kaspersky Labs in Den Bosch where she works on patches to catch the latest virus outbreaks, wich in some cases are true pieces of art.
I did have many conversations about virusses and malware with her as she has many years of exp in these matters, and from what i understand is that:
No matter how good your IT network/Systems are secured if its made up out of codes then it can be broken.
Also its a know fact that most antivirus/ Firewall and other security related companies are pretty quick in catching a virus and make it "undone" this takes hours or at max a few days (Unless its really a nasty virus that did spread to mutch and has to mutch "payload & defence" options.
Non the less, viruses, bots, worms and such nasty pieces of code can do millions of damage to networks and it systems in a matter of minutes upon infecting.
Bottomline the damage has already been done before it can be solved.
Golden rule in antimalware and security world is: The security system in general always have to catch up.
So this applies to cyber warfare as well, if a nation like china or any other nation that has high it infrasturcture and knowlegd then it can mount a programmed attack anywhere, wich will cause a great deal of damage no matter how good you are secured.
I know there might be some discussion about it and there might be people that think differendly but keep in mind that a hacker or rogue programmer will always hand out the first hit.
And depending on your security and your internal IT infrastructure the outcome is that you have damage and that vital info can be stolen/ destroyed or even altered as has been proven in the past.
It does not take a genuis to hack even a freaking 14 year old kid was able to hack nasa, esa and the national bank of the USA.
And i assume that those organistations do have a good security and that they do know what they are doing right?
And yes having a attacking bot can be dangerous specially in the right hands, but IMO defences against such programs and codes are just useless as defences and firewalls get crushed so fast that they are simply not worth the time to install them. (Sure granted they keep out most attacks and they contribute greatly to a secured system) but we are not talking about some script kiddy who try's his luck....we are talking about cyber warfare with the aim to destroy your intel capabilities, so in that regard the best defence would be monitoring surviance systems that can track codes and programs before they even reach the networks or targetted systems.
Like Norton and Kaspersky are doing on their End Point protection suits.
Monitor and tag each file, code, program or command with a unique id to prevent it from executing or altering info UNLESS you give the specific go for it.
This works great for data that comes from the outside world, however for dangers from its own network that demands more security from the people that acctually do work with the systems as its in my POV not acceptable that personel from big organisations are allowed to spread virusses willing or unwilling by mobile media...
Anyway long story short.......
If a nation specializes in cyber warfare then 99% of every nation out there has a problem.
Atm europa has a huge lead over the US when it comes to IT technological infrastructure and it has many dangers to face and many challenges to overcome before you can effectivly stop a rogue attack.
Now imagin the US wich has in most states a lot of catching up to do to even match the EU common standards, so how the hell will they effective stop a serious cyber attack? if they are always at least one step behind? As has been proven since the day the pc did distibuted the very first virus?
I'd seriously dispute the notion that Europe is ahead of systems protection against intrusion - specifically wrt to military closed networks.
most breaches of military networks are compromised first from within by someone notionally regarded as trusted.
I know of no incidents where our allied partners have had any of their "high" systems compromised from external attacks.
In a recent military security demo I attended in germany involving basically G8 partners,, we witnessed a cyber security team from the FBI break into what was regarded as one of the most highly protected non military networks on the planet. It was done live, in front of us and in under 25 seconds.
the rapid drain in colour of the face of the IT team leader who was huffing and puffing 5 minutes earlier about its imperviosity and ability to withstand sophisticated attacks was a sight to behold.
any systems can be broken under the right circumstances, but high systems are much much more difficult - and for reasons which I'm not going to espouse in here.
as I said, most high breaches are compromised from within from trusted users - not trusted sources.
the systems that you see as compromised in the news are not high systems, they are open to the grid and that usually means that the material allowed on them is immediately rated down as its assumed that when its on that grid its uncontrolled.
EXSSBN2005
New Member
Semi off target here as its not a military system but its like the power plant I work at now, we have the admin / internet capable / logs computers on a totally seperate system from the controls system which are only on our intranet and all have keycard access in physical control rooms as outlined in FERC / NERC but some powerplants and then the grid operator im not sure what the operating system is like there but we are pretty secure on the operations side. :type
Please correct me if im wrong but really the only way to be 100% safe is as a stand alone system with proper controls of external media in/out. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Pentagon gets hit by attempted hacking in the tens of thousands of hits per day. A stand alone would be nice for that reason but its not wholey practical in todays world iirc.
NERC = NERC - North American Electric Reliability Corporation
FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Please correct me if im wrong but really the only way to be 100% safe is as a stand alone system with proper controls of external media in/out. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Pentagon gets hit by attempted hacking in the tens of thousands of hits per day. A stand alone would be nice for that reason but its not wholey practical in todays world iirc.
NERC = NERC - North American Electric Reliability Corporation
FERC = Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
yep,
which is why military high systems are physically separated from the network and why you can't access the internet etc from such systems.
all the classified high networks are physically separate. there are limited numbers of workstations that can talk out or down, and they're so heavily monitored and managed that its not funny. they're usually simplex as well, the data diodes only allow one way traffic, ie going out, but nothing coming in.
localhost127
Member
the problem with this, is then admins are allowed to become 'lazy' regarding patches and software levels...because, if there's no chance from an outside attack, then "what's the rush in fixing 0-day security issues?"
in the real world, --- most attacks come from the inside....just like someone carelessly inserting a usb thumb drive with auto-run enabled.
Beatmaster
New Member
Well thats exactly the point i was heading at, this FBI team (Attacker) cracked that defence like a eggshell, against as you called one of the most secure non-military networks.
So this proves my point right away.
No matter how good you are secured the attacker wins....period (At least for now)
However back to the point you want to dispute the notion that the EU is ahead of IP Systems.
EU Nations specificly: Norway, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Danmark, Finland are regarded as the worlds top IT nations based upon their levels of IT and knowlegd wich is undisputed for the last 10 years.
In amsterdam you have the Amsterdam Internet Exchange node wich is one of the major backbones of the internet world wide, and at this point its the only node worldwide that is capable of monitoring and tagging ungoing and preparing attacks that are being started towards EU based networks before they effective leave their own IP adresses and Routing nodes.
TNO and NBV: Nationaal Bureau Verbindingsbeveiliging Signals is working on the new node monitoring servers wich are capable to rewrite programs into a totally new and unique computer algoritmic.
Wich means that you get a protection level based upon a source code barrier.
Example: A virus is written in a code, mostly the usuall common basic codes wich are being accepted by most networks and computers.
And these new servers are capable to read without executing the traffic packages and re-write them into a totally new and unigue pc grammar that can only be read and executed by the recieving client while the original harmsfull strings are left out as they are not being converted by the new security server and simply left out.
So that same virus that is written in C++ or pascal will become a piece of useless code as the recieving client pc does not support its original source, because BIM did filter out the harmfull strings.
However this is still theoretical as the new servers are under construction and research.
AMX does a similair thing but this is limited to goverment networks as it the crypto levels and techniques are hybrid and classified.
This all might sound sensational and it pretty mutch is.
Anyway before this topic turns out in a who's best convo, i would like to add, that given the fact that the internet/telecom infrastructures in the EU are a bit higher than in other regions this also means that we face differend kind of dangers right?
Iam pretty sure that the US Goverment systems will be protected by the best available and this is probably not limited to US knowlegd only, so in that regard i think we are on the same page.
Howver when it comes to innovation and research then its a know fact that the structure of the EU ISS/ISP services are fast phase and very advanced compared to the relative older systems that are commonly used in the US. (This might be differend for industrial applications)
But due the fast growing levels and innovations the EU has generally a lead in ICT services, as has been shown in the past 10 years.
And this might be explained due the relative small size of the EU countries as it is way more easy to upgrade the networks and isp services in for example: Belguim then upgrading the whole US.
So eventually the US will catch up, However i agree that the knowlegd levels in the US and EU are nearly on the same page, but the option to deploy that knowlegd is for now more used in the EU as the internet infrastructure does offer alot more support thanks to its rapid innovation and demand for security.
So maybe i do explain this wrong but i think you get my general point.
Cheers
localhost127
Member
i'll dispute that
ams-ix isn't as impressive as you attempt to make it - and the fact that you somehow believe US PoPs arent comparable is almost laughable. it's an exchange, that is all. many private companies have larger exchanges than the amx-ix. it's nothing overly spectacular.
please explain further. this doesn't make any sense.
sounds like basic application layer processing of ip packets.
what do you mean by this? higher in what regards?
most telco/ip space in the US is private based. so how can you make the comparison based on country? what are you even comparing here? it's too vague.
catch up in what regard?
again, most US infrastructure is privately owned. it's up to that company to determine their level of investment and operation. if you want to compare to that of publicly held organizations, then that's fine..but overall you seem to lump everything into one comparison (without providing details of exactly what you're comparing)...and it isnt clear.
Beatmaster
New Member
Norway, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Danmark, Finland are regarded as the worlds top IT nations based upon their levels of IT and knowlegd wich is undisputed for the last 10 years.
You dispute that? Based on what? Magazines? Blogs? Forums? or is this a personal opinion?
As iam in IT/ICT for the past 9 years.
We could discus this in detail but that would take forever so lets make this short ok?
VOIP, Telecom, Internet, Wireless just a few catagories where these countries shine.
Also the demand for software based platforms is skyrocketing, due the fact that everything has to be faster, more secure and more user friendly.
The start of the internet or as it use to be called "ARPA Network" has been researched and exploited beyond most peoples wildest dreams in both good and bad ways.
And still there are years and years we can spend in innovation and research of new applications and systems.
Iam not saying that the US is dumb, nor am i saying that they are decades behind.
What iam saying is that due the size of the US and due the many private networks / ISP companies and the lack of some of them to upgrade their network to at least tier 3 (Average networks in the US are tier 1 and tier 2 while EU standards are tier 5 and some countries even tier 6) They just cannot hit the EU standards overnight.
I mean unless they have a few hundered billion flying around lol.
So what iam saying is that the US certainly has the knowlegd and the skill to create/ maintain and support tier 6 networks and tier 6 infrastructure but the nodes, mainlines, datacenters and and and so on...they are just not ready for it so they cannot support it yet.
This does not mean that a private network lets say for example nasa or national defence cannot have tier 6 or higher, agree?
What iam talking about is nationwide and not limited to private networks, multilayer networks, internal and external datacenters.
The US aint ready yet to reach that level nation wide, while the noted nations in my previous post are for the most part beyond tier 5 or higher, wich allow them to use more advanced applications, systems and so on.
Anyway the comment you made about AMX just made me laugh.
AMX is atm the second largest node on this planet, and it has a unmatched record in terms of security, speed, innovation and uptime.
Nothing to discus here just facts. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Internet_Exchange"]Amsterdam Internet Exchange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Logo_Amsterdam_Internet_Exchange.png" class="image"><img alt="Logo Amsterdam Internet Exchange.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Logo_Amsterdam_Internet_Exchange.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/8/8a/Logo_Amsterdam_Internet_Exchange.png[/ame]
As it is the second largest node, its also a very great spot to start filtering "bad traffic"
Wich brings me to your next comments:
please explain further. this doesn't make any sense.
sounds like basic application layer processing of ip packets
As i said AMX is the second largest node where huge amounts of data are being transported, monitored.
The security around this node is unmatched, tested and proven the so called application layer processing of ip packets goes alittle further than that just a little lol.
The AMX node is known trough out the ICT community worldwide as the masterminded fortress.
I wonder why that is?
The TNO project i was refering to starts where the current AMX security meets its limits as it is older.
But ill suggest that you readup on the net about it as iam not going to spend hours explaining the whole thing.
As for the rest of your comments, faster internet, higher tier networks allow differend kind of dangers and more advanced high speed attacks upon a network.
The higher the tier level of a network/ ICT infrastucture the higher and more advanced the attacks will be upon your networks. As higher tier layer networks allow new security options but it also opens up more and newer problems wich the older systems do not face as they just are not advanced enough to be affected by such high level coding and cyber attacks....see my point?
Kind Regards
Beatmaster
You dispute that? Based on what? Magazines? Blogs? Forums? or is this a personal opinion?
As iam in IT/ICT for the past 9 years.
We could discus this in detail but that would take forever so lets make this short ok?
VOIP, Telecom, Internet, Wireless just a few catagories where these countries shine.
Also the demand for software based platforms is skyrocketing, due the fact that everything has to be faster, more secure and more user friendly.
The start of the internet or as it use to be called "ARPA Network" has been researched and exploited beyond most peoples wildest dreams in both good and bad ways.
And still there are years and years we can spend in innovation and research of new applications and systems.
Iam not saying that the US is dumb, nor am i saying that they are decades behind.
What iam saying is that due the size of the US and due the many private networks / ISP companies and the lack of some of them to upgrade their network to at least tier 3 (Average networks in the US are tier 1 and tier 2 while EU standards are tier 5 and some countries even tier 6) They just cannot hit the EU standards overnight.
I mean unless they have a few hundered billion flying around lol.
So what iam saying is that the US certainly has the knowlegd and the skill to create/ maintain and support tier 6 networks and tier 6 infrastructure but the nodes, mainlines, datacenters and and and so on...they are just not ready for it so they cannot support it yet.
This does not mean that a private network lets say for example nasa or national defence cannot have tier 6 or higher, agree?
What iam talking about is nationwide and not limited to private networks, multilayer networks, internal and external datacenters.
The US aint ready yet to reach that level nation wide, while the noted nations in my previous post are for the most part beyond tier 5 or higher, wich allow them to use more advanced applications, systems and so on.
Anyway the comment you made about AMX just made me laugh.
AMX is atm the second largest node on this planet, and it has a unmatched record in terms of security, speed, innovation and uptime.
Nothing to discus here just facts. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Internet_Exchange"]Amsterdam Internet Exchange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Logo_Amsterdam_Internet_Exchange.png" class="image"><img alt="Logo Amsterdam Internet Exchange.png" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8a/Logo_Amsterdam_Internet_Exchange.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/8/8a/Logo_Amsterdam_Internet_Exchange.png[/ame]
As it is the second largest node, its also a very great spot to start filtering "bad traffic"
Wich brings me to your next comments:
please explain further. this doesn't make any sense.
sounds like basic application layer processing of ip packets
As i said AMX is the second largest node where huge amounts of data are being transported, monitored.
The security around this node is unmatched, tested and proven the so called application layer processing of ip packets goes alittle further than that just a little lol.
The AMX node is known trough out the ICT community worldwide as the masterminded fortress.
I wonder why that is?
The TNO project i was refering to starts where the current AMX security meets its limits as it is older.
But ill suggest that you readup on the net about it as iam not going to spend hours explaining the whole thing.
As for the rest of your comments, faster internet, higher tier networks allow differend kind of dangers and more advanced high speed attacks upon a network.
The higher the tier level of a network/ ICT infrastucture the higher and more advanced the attacks will be upon your networks. As higher tier layer networks allow new security options but it also opens up more and newer problems wich the older systems do not face as they just are not advanced enough to be affected by such high level coding and cyber attacks....see my point?
Kind Regards
Beatmaster
Beatmaster
New Member
A side note i forgot to mention,
Attacks always start with the weakest link, this can be mobile media, attacks from the inside, or directly intercepting direct traffic and data towards a open network just to name a few.
Another way is to isolate the targetted network by taking out the unprotected nodes and switches wich is pretty common if the target is a high value company or organisation.\
So basicly starving the protected network wich cause its data to "circle" within the network, as the outgoing points are "infected or damaged creating a stack/buffer overflow within its own structure. Result? a dead network without hitting the network itself.
So as the previous posters have said, trusted people, mobile media and so on is a huge risk itself and can create havoc on a secured network.
However a the security and monitoring systems are just as good as the surrounding nodes allow it to be, leaving the option open to be attacked by its weakest link.
Attacks always start with the weakest link, this can be mobile media, attacks from the inside, or directly intercepting direct traffic and data towards a open network just to name a few.
Another way is to isolate the targetted network by taking out the unprotected nodes and switches wich is pretty common if the target is a high value company or organisation.\
So basicly starving the protected network wich cause its data to "circle" within the network, as the outgoing points are "infected or damaged creating a stack/buffer overflow within its own structure. Result? a dead network without hitting the network itself.
So as the previous posters have said, trusted people, mobile media and so on is a huge risk itself and can create havoc on a secured network.
However a the security and monitoring systems are just as good as the surrounding nodes allow it to be, leaving the option open to be attacked by its weakest link.
you've failled to mention Sth Korea.
At an comms infrastructure level they are probably highter than any of the countries you menton.ie at a fibre length per population per land mass they are well ahead of everyone else.
so it depends on how you start defining comms capability. eg is it overall infrastructure, the pipes, the defensive capablity etc....
at a defensive layer, at a military level the US is a golden mile ahead of anyone. again, bear in mind that military high networks are deliberately isolated from the common networks and what data diodes in place are usually established as simplex one way (hi-lo traffic and never lo-hi traffic)
localhost127
Member
over here -- we have private companies that determine the local connectivity. the government (while occasionally providing subsidies -- especially for physical infrastructure to the homes) --- is not involved in this. this is the nature of our economy.
again, im not sure how you are drawing a conclusion of private investment in the US to individual homes, vs that of socialized infrastructure of EU countries...and what does that have to do with your initial commentary regarding knowledge and top tier telecomms?
does a fibre-to-the-home (transceivers operating at 1gbit speeds) in select metro cities have anything to do with capabilities off the grid? why are you comparing ip networks to residential homes, when the bulk of ip infrastructure is dark or private/leased line - which is on one of many 'internets'.
you seem to lack the ability to distinguish between public and private entities. please detail further what you mean by "levels of It and knowledge --- undisputed", as you made the initial claim with no reference as to what you were referring to. now, you are attempting to say that because a resident has a faster connection, that that somehow distinguishes itself as a leader in technology? it's meaningless. my neighborhood has DWDM to individual homes...32 lambdas that i can pear off...does that make my country better than yours from a technological standpoint? no - it's meaningless.
decades behind what, exactly? you still havent been specific and instead have lumped completely separate entities together. trying to somehow find correlation between speeds of residential access and it capabilities of many private entities.
you haven't made a clear point.
Last edited: