Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Security

Microsoft to Release 6 Security Updates Next Week 123

Posted by CowboyNeal from the on-the-horizon dept.
An anonymous reader wrote in with an article that leads: "Microsoft will release six groups of security patches next week, including three critical updates for Windows and Excel users. The critical updates will fix bugs in many different versions of Microsoft's products including the latest versions of Excel, Windows XP, Vista and Windows Server 2003, Microsoft said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft to Release 6 Security Updates Next Week More

Microsoft to Release 6 Security Updates Next Week

Comments Filter:

  • well thank god (Score:5, Funny)

    by witte ( 681163 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @06:31AM (#19765567)
    ... at least now we will be safe !
    • Six, eh? That's one fix, two to fix the bugs the first fix introduced, and two more to fix the bugs the last two introduced. The one left over causes several new serious bugs, but on the positive side it adds realistic 3d shading to clippy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by niceone ( 992278 ) *
      Yes, next week we will all be safe. Best not open any documents or spreadsheets until then though. Tell your boss it's for security reasons.
    • instead we are in danger for one week then they will announce another security patch and we will never feel safer.
  • Man bites dog is news. This is not exactly news.

    Anyway, now we have an *entire* week to speculate about how this amazing event will turn out, a la iPhone.

  • Hmmmn (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Jaaay ( 1124197 )
    This shows the importance of a good NAT firewall. However it'd be interesting to know if the user must click allow on a lot of UAC warnings first to be compromised or it comes through clean since this is supposed to be one of the main benefits of Vista. The UAC works reasonably well for me, it's just annoying when stupid companies like ASUS ship "Vista Ready" cds in the box that have unsigned code that generate a lot of warnings.

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by KiloByte ( 825081 )

      This shows the importance of a good NAT firewall.
      You got that wrong. You meant "the importance of a good firewall". NAT is a bad, bad thing, at least in the usual meaning of that word -- while technically any kind of a box in the middle meddling with sender/receiver fields in a packet is network translation, the typical setup of X machines being shoehorned into 1 IP doesn't have a single benefit, just a lot of downsides.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Jaaay ( 1124197 )
        I just figured if I have a bloody hard time configuring and opening ports without problems for legitimate programs on it that trojans and other nasty stuff must have a hard time getting through and sending back data also :)

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by pasamio ( 737659 )
          NAT doesn't stop people sending data back it just stops people directly coming in. Since they can get out they can tunnel a way back in or sit on an IRC server or similar system and wait for commands. There are also techniques like STUN that trick a NAT system into opening a port without actually realising it. Even though you have a hard time getting things to work, people have already thought of this and have no issues working around things ;)

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by somersault ( 912633 )
        "the typical setup of X machines being shoehorned into 1 IP doesn't have a single benefit"

        If that were true then it wouldn't be done. If it weren't being done then everyone in an office would need their own public IP to connect to the net? It's a benefit to be able to firewall traffic at one point rather than doing the same checks on every machine as well.
        • One word: IPv4.

        • Re:Hmmmn (Score:4, Informative)

          by Ephemeriis ( 315124 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @08:22AM (#19766303)

          "the typical setup of X machines being shoehorned into 1 IP doesn't have a single benefit"

          If that were true then it wouldn't be done. If it weren't being done then everyone in an office would need their own public IP to connect to the net? It's a benefit to be able to firewall traffic at one point rather than doing the same checks on every machine as well.
          The benefit is that it allows us to continue using IPv4 with relatively few problems. It allows ISPs to keep from running out of static IP addresses. And that is only a 'benefit' because IPv4 is more-or-less broken at this point.

          Just because a PC has a public IP doesn't mean you don't need a firewall or router. It doesn't mean you'd be doing all your firewalling on the individual PCs. You'd still route your traffic through a central box and do your checks there instead of on every machine.

          I'm not going to say NAT is completely bad all the time. It's a handy little hack. But that's exactly what it is - a hack to keep IPv4 alive. And doing away with NAT would eliminate a lot of headaches that cramming dozens of PCs into one public IP address has created. Of course...we'd get other headaches in exchange... But nothing is perfect.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by pasamio ( 737659 )
          Well you can do stateful packet inspection if you want to pay for decent routing gear to make sure everything is doing what it should. In fact there are a whole heap of things that allow you to control a single point and give out public IPs. My university staff network used to have public IPs for some sections because they needed it. The main reason why not everyone gets public IPs is the fact that there simply isn't enough IP addresses in the v4 range to go around, with IPv6 we could easily give everyone a
          • Yeah I was thinking that there wouldn't be enough IPv4 addresses, and it must be cheaper to only have one web facing IP address anyway? I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to registering public IPs/domain names etc. Yeah NAT isn't the same as firewalling I guess, but they tend to work quite well together :P

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by pasamio ( 737659 )
              Public IP addresses are a resource that is managed and cannot be bought per se. There are management fees associated in acquiring IP addresses but I believe if you show you are using them then there is no issue. Its just proper management of a limited resource, what should occur in a lot of cases but doesn't for lots of reasons. They work well together and it should be regarded that they should be together as NAT isn't a standalone solution, especially in a decent sized enterprise.

  • Let's help the subbys and editors with this chore. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Linker3000 ( 626634 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @06:45AM (#19765637) Journal
    Microsoft Patch Release Announcement
    (Slashdot Standard Form #97)

    Microsoft will release [$COUNT] security patches

    [ ] Today
    [ ] Tomorrow
    [ ] Next Week
    [ ] When they goddam say so

    Including [$NUMCRITICAL] critical updates for

    [ ] Windows
        [ ] XP
        [ ] 2000
        [ ] Server 2000
        [ ] Server 2003
        [ ] Vista
    [ ] Linux (..sorry, just kidding!)
    [ ] Word
    [ ] Excel
    [ ] Access
    [ ] PowerPoint
    [ ] Bob
    [ ] Internet Explorer
    [ ] Outlook
    [ ] Outlook Express
    [ ] Exchange
    [ ] DOS 6.22
    [ ] All of the above

    A spokesperson said "We take a very serious view of or responsibilities to ensure that the Microsoft computing experience is safe and secure for all our valued customers - and these updates show our commitment to that goal"

    When what they really meant to say was...

    [ ] Fsck, we just found some more stuff we missed during beta testing.
    [ ] We never thought someone would try THAT
    [ ] Yeah, we were kinda hoping we could keep that one quiet but then some geeky, long-haired nerd had to go and post about it on teh Internets.

  • Why is this news again? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Toreo asesino ( 951231 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @06:54AM (#19765681) Journal
    Does everyone here secretly run Windows systems, or is this another MS-bashing opportunity? Can we have security fixes released for Linux kernel published too please? I think that might be more relevant for the practical purposes this article was no doubt published...

    I mean, Christ, it's almost like everyone here hates Microsoft or something!

    Wait a minute....

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by linal ( 1116371 )
      You got 500 euros? http://www.wslabi.com/wabisabilabi/initPublishedBi d.do [wslabi.com]?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ephemeriis ( 315124 )

      Does everyone here secretly run Windows systems

      Secretly? No... But my job forces me to deal with Windows far more than I like. And then there's three Windows gaming systems at home...

      I mean, Christ, it's almost like everyone here hates Microsoft or something!

      See my above statement. By the time I get home from dealing with buggy Windows machines all day long the last thing I want to do is deal with more Windows issues at home...which is why I'm running Linux for my primary machine. But we're a family of

    • Actually, this is useful. I work in Desktop Support at an IT company, and we finally had to turn off Microsoft Updates, as it was crippling us. Of course, the answer would be to use some type of update management solution, but that has not happened yet. Its just good to know ahead of time that users might be experiencing problems.

      Of couse, one could argue that Microsoft releases patches just about every Tuesday. Just expect to have higher than average traffic on your helpdesk come Wednesday morning.

      I have t

    • Why is this news again?

      Because Vista [slashdot.org] doesn't have security problems.

    • Actually, this is a great public service. I have a couple windows virtual desktops that I log into in order to check how pages look in MSIE, and now I know I need to patch them next week.

      Anyway, given MS's market share, patches to Windows *are* a bigger deal, newswise, than patches to other systems.

  • Ok and... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by svendsen ( 1029716 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @06:59AM (#19765705)
    why is there an article about patches anymore? Everything gets patched... Windows / Linux / OS X / a few hundred thousand applications that run on them.

    Slashdot all the news about iPhone and patches that you have ever dreamed of....

  • This is just great! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CaptainZapp ( 182233 ) * on Friday July 06, 2007 @07:17AM (#19765791) Homepage
    Time to patch my Laptop (Samsung, XP Pro legally licensed). There's only one problem with that:

    When I start Windows Update it informs me that it needs updating. Attempting to do so leads to a carped update with some error code. In short: Without the "improved" version of the software no more Windows update for me and since getting the "improved" version fails to install in the first place...

    This seems to be a known problem for which there doesn't ssem to be a fix yet. And no! Re-installing the OS is not and option since this toasts my Ubuntu partition.

    Microsoft is a company that pisses me off more and more on a daily basis. Thank you for listening.

    • VMware or Qemu (Score:3, Interesting)

      by flyingfsck ( 986395 )
      is the solution. That way, you can concurrently run Windows in a window on Ubuntu and you can recover the wasted Windows disk partition too, using ntfs-3g. Actually, when using an emulator, Win98se works even better than Expee and since you won't be using any of the internet 'features' of Windows anymore, the vulnerabilities won't affect you, while making backups of Windows becomes a breeze using tar. With Windoze on Qemu, you don't need to bother updating it anymore either - it just keeps on working.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by penp ( 1072374 )
        I tried Qemu, but it ran 40x slower than windows did when I was running it in vmware (when it was free). And yes, I have kqemu installed, and I have almost a gig of ram set aside for the emulated XP computer. It'd be nice to be able to just run Win98se for my windows crap, but Photoshop wont run in that environment.

        Any other nice (free) alternatives?
      • "Above 17 steps...."

        This is why I won't deal with Windows at home anymore. Ok, only 5 steps, but that's 4 too many.
    • Maybe that's the patch- a non-functioning Windows is probably more secure.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by TheUni ( 1007895 )
      You could use something like http://www.autopatcher.com/ [autopatcher.com] to bring yourself up to date.
      And sure, reinstalling windows would make your Linux inaccessible, but a simple grub reinstall (or alternatively using ntldr to boot linux) isn't too tough...

      TheUni
    • It's a long-shot, but I've actually seen Windiz Updates fix something quite like this, and then the official MS updating worked just fine. Of course, you might just stick with Windiz afterwards :)
      http://windizupdate.62nds.com/ [62nds.com]
      • I answer your post represantively for everybody that stepped in and tried to help. I did the error code google search stik and in essence it leads to that: A file is blocked while WU tries to install the new version. Usually this is triggered by virus scanners. I even went so far to uninstall the Antivirus software to no avail.

        Re-installation is not an option because the restore DVD is totally binary. You can flatten the whole thing or not and I'm not inclined to obtain a dodgy pirate copy for a software I

    • Turn off automatic updates, reboot and run a manual windows update will usually clear it. If not, you might have a corrupted update catalog or the like - google the error code will usually give you instructions to clear it; there's quite a few different ways to break windows update and all I've come across so far are pretty straightforward to fix. If you get stuck, post the error code here and i'll try and find a guide.

      Yes, it pisses me off too, which is why I run windows under vmware these days :)
    • Try using "Microsoft Update" instead of "Windows Update". If that doesn't work, fixing this (I've done it before) is a big PITA. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember it was hard to figure out. :-(

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bacon Bits ( 926911 )
      99% of problems with Windows Update are caused by incomplete download or corrupt catalog data.

      Stop the BITS and Automatic Updates services and then delete (or rename) C:\Windows\SoftwareDistribution. Then restart the BITS and Automatic Updates services.

      Script:

      net stop bits
      net stop wuauserv
      rmdir /s /q %windir%\SoftwareDistribution
      net start wuauserv
      net start bits

      You should also apply these updates if you haven't before:
      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927891 [microsoft.com]

      Installing the WUA 3.0 with the /wuforce switch a

    • If you can't reinstall windows without killing a seperate partition you need to turn over your nerd hat. Hint reinstall windows. Oh no my bootloader!!!!! Relax boot knoppix, and reinstall the mbr using the grub command. Don't know how to use grub? RTFM

  • Patch Tuesday = no work for an hour or two (Score:5, Insightful)

    by simong ( 32944 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @07:17AM (#19765799) Homepage
    One of the joys of working for a big company is the splendid way in which a large patch distribution nails network bandwidth and pulls down every machine in the office while it is installed. I'm not sure who's at fault here but they sure ain't the sharpest tool in the box.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by figleaf ( 672550 )
      If that is how it works in your org. Then they should start using WSUS or learn how to use it properly.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by shird ( 566377 )
      Whos at fault? Your company. They are not using WSUS (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/wsus/default.a spx) or something similar. The technology is there, don't blame MS.

      Not the sharpest tool in the box.
    • Well lets be completely honest. WSUS will only save you if you are running v3.0 and have your update client up to date. Prior to that (month and a half ago) WSUS was the problem. This issue manifested itself in 99% CPU utilization by the SVCHost parent process. However if you want to avoid patch Tuesday then just leave your computer on and logged off over night. If you come in and boot up your machine (or unlock it for that matter) and try to get your critical updates at the same time as everyone else in th
      • Not true. I deployed WSUS 2.0 a year ago, and it worked fine. I didn't care to use a webpage to manage it, but thankfully they now have an MMC snap-in for v3 instead.
        • Perhaps you should have told the WSUS development team that the widespread WSUS CPU utilization issues could be solved by you and your specific installation of WSUS... http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archive/2007/05/15/s rvhost-msi-issue-follow-up.aspx [technet.com]
          • Perhaps you should realize that it didn't happen to everyone. Also, the bug you mention was something specific to MSI, not WSUS. The issue occured for one week before another patche fixed the issue.
            • Well given that the two parts work hand in hand I was under the impression that it went without saying. I can't bring myself to say that WSUS 2.0 worked fine because the two parts are interdependent (unless you just wanted to run WSUS 2.0 and not have any clients actually use it). Regardless it took MS way too long to fix the issue. It occurred for three full months before MS fixed the issue.
              • You could say that the Linux kernel is broken if driver that works hand in hand with it is broken.

                WSUS did work fine, you don't need WSUS to use MSI at all. MSI is just their package manager. As I've said, I had WSUS 2 running for quite some time and never experienced the issue. It also didn't take them three months to fix the issue.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by lukas84 ( 912874 )
        That was a big problem, and it wasn't funny that Microsoft took AGES to fix this.

        However, there were several viable and working workarounds (mostly developed by the community).

        And your "not logging off" variant does not work if you've configured the GPOs for the WU Client correctly...

        • And your "not logging off" variant does not work if you've configured the GPOs for the WU Client correctly...
          What do you mean? Are you meaning the difference between allowing the user the choice of when to reboot or making that decision for them?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by plague3106 ( 71849 )
      Your large company has idiots for IT then. There's no reason not to use WSUS, then you have one server downloading from the internet, and clients pulling from that (or another interal downstream server). And you set it to do so at 3AM when no one is around.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PhxBlue ( 562201 )

      I would have to inquire as to why your IT department isn't managing the software updates across the LAN? What are they getting paid for, if not PC configuration management?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by simong ( 32944 )
        Oh, I agree entirely. The company in question is very backward in its IT practises and they should get the cleu in a few years, probably at about the same time that they migrate the email system from Notes 5.

        On the other hand though, getting people to leave their machines on overnight is counter to alleged 'green' policies, and even if it's only once a month or even once a year, the culture of non-communication in the company makes it impossible to tell people to leave their machines on. I'm a contractor by
        • Are the "green" policies written by someone who actually knows what they are talking about or by some idiot PHB? Yes, I know that's redundant.

          Most computers I've seen in the last, well, decade allow you to set configuration options to power down hard drives, monitors, and the CPU(s) to conserve energy when the system isn't being used. Your power drain overnight on such a machine -- assuming it is properly configured -- should be minimal. Consequently, it would seem to me that the argument for

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by pete.com ( 741064 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @07:30AM (#19765903)
    This just in...

    The sun will be rising in the east today and setting in the west. We will continue to cover this breaking news as more details come to light.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rhizome ( 115711 )
      Not only that, but people have already started camping out in line for this much anticipated bugfix release. Some say the people at the front of the line just want to resell the bugfixes on Ebay, but many people have said that they fully intend to use the bugfixes on their own machines.
  • > ... including ... Vista ...

    That's what I thought you said. At least now we know that moving from XP to Vista is not a security upgrade. So much for the oh so secure new OS, I'm sure it's worth every penny I saved not getting it.

    I'm thinking about migrating to DOS 6.6. I have no idea how secure it is, but I'm pretty damn sure nobody's trying to exploit it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by empaler ( 130732 )
      MS stopped at DOS 6.22 as a standalone product. There's 7.0 in the 9Xs. DR-DOS/OpenDOS, I believe, stranded at 7.01 or something. 6.6 is a number I haven't heard before...
    • Righhht. So what version of Linux can we expect there to be zero security exploits for it EVER again?
  • There will *always* be security updates. Unfortunately bugs in programs are inherent to how we write programs. Sure- there is plenty people could do-- functional programming approach, better coding practices, et cetera-- but a few more bug fixes just isn't news. hell-- linux and macosx have bug fixes all the time too but they rarely hit slashdots front page.

  • To those who have overconfidence about security. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zombie Ryushu ( 803103 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @08:25AM (#19766327)
    Yes, Linux is more secure than Windows. We know that.

    That doesn't mean that we can rest easy on Linux Security. We must never for a moment think that even with Linux we are ever completely safe. As long as any computer has power to it, it has a security risk, but I'd like to present an alternative way of thinking about it.

    Linux must not only be better in security, but better in capability.

    I know that design wise, OpenLDAP/Kerberos/Samba/FreeRadius/AFS will produce a far more secure network infrastructure than Active Directory will. But that combination will not produce as capable an infrastructure as the real ADS. The worst security vulnerability Linux could have is the security vulnerability produced when an orginization chooses Active Directory on Windows over Open Directory on Linux.

    If you want to change this, contribute to OpenLDAP, to Samba, to FreeRadius, and Kerberos. Lets make Open Directory not only more secure to Active Directory, but outright superior.
  • This is news is like saying today is Friday is news. In other news today is also the 6th of July and not to mention grocery day. More at 11.

  • "Excel, XP, Vista, Server 2003..."

    I know, this shouldn't affect me, but it still boggles my mind (a little) that we need security updates for a SPREADSHEET APPLICATION. An OS? Server software? Sure. But Excel? It's a sad commentary on Microsoft's software that such a thing is necessary.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Froqen ( 36822 )
      > it still boggles my mind (a little) that we need security updates for a SPREADSHEET APPLICATION. An OS? Server software? Sure. But Excel? It's a sad commentary on Microsoft's software that such a thing is necessary.

      That has nothing to do with Microsoft, anything that touches data that someone else generated can have a security vulnerability, which is almost everything you would ever want to run in this crazy internet enabled world of ours.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PhxBlue ( 562201 )

        That has nothing to do with Microsoft ...

        I'm not so sure I agree. Why does a spreadsheet need to be able to run extensive VBA code?

        • Lately, it's been plain old buffer overflows. Something has to read the *.doc file. Reading files is not hard, unless you need to avoid crashing on corrupted documents. (crashing means exploitable)

      • That has nothing to do with Microsoft, anything that touches data that someone else generated can have a security vulnerability, which is almost everything you would ever want to run in this crazy internet enabled world of ours.

        Really? If I generate a spreadsheet of budget projections for a project, and I send it to my colleagues for review, there's absolutely no reason why they should have to worry about the file somehow pwning their PC. If my mother uses Excel for organizing names and addresses for my

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by phildo420 ( 827619 )
          Excel doesn't simply contain data. There are whole applications built around and through Excel. Excel can call .NET code, access SQL databases, and transfer/collect information over the web with the proper coding and tools.

          We have a fairly strong infrastructure of MATLAB, Excel, SQL, and Access (all working together) for handling incoming data, processing it, creating easy to read and edit reports with pretty charts for the CEO types, and finally storing it and analyzing it for future access.
          We typically

          • Nice assumptions. I'm not a "Microsoft hater" in the least. Like anything: when their software works, it works great.

            Anyway, you said "Excel doesn't simply contain data. There are whole applications built around and through Excel. Excel can call .NET code, access SQL databases, and transfer/collect information over the web with the proper coding and tools." That is all very true -- for technically expert people. (I've worked on Excel/Access/internet integrated apps in the past.) For the vast majority o

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dave562 ( 969951 )
            If some of you Microsoft haters actually understood some of the power within the Office group (interop is wonderful) then you might not hate it quite so much.

            With power comes responsibility. In this case the responsibility is to make sure that things are secure. I tend to agree with you that the Office suite is extremely powerful and interoperates very well. With 2007 and SharePortal it is becoming even more useful for workflow/process automation kind of work. However the problem is that Microsoft focu

        • Microsoft does not have a monopoly on plain old buffer overflows.

          Something has to read the *.doc file. Reading files is not hard, unless you need to avoid crashing on corrupted documents. (crashing means exploitable)

          Open up an OpenOffice file as a zip file. Look at the XML. Scramble it a bit. Zip it all up again. Watch OpenOffice crash. Write an exploit.
  • Hmm, so this means we have a free week to use these exploits.
  • This kind of crap will never be news. People who find this information important without a doubt will find it handy, but to the folks here at /. and like sites, it's just feeding a needless fire. Yes, we collectively hate Microsoft. I don't particularly care for them either - but at the same time, -every- OS releases patches, frequently. Some of them may break things. Some of them may fix things. No OS is spared from the same kind of crap that happens to any other OS, so why does everyone have to put MS on

  • However... (Score:3, Informative)

    by DimGeo ( 694000 ) on Friday July 06, 2007 @05:13PM (#19773891) Homepage
    ... The only Vista bug that I can see in this bulletin is "Moderate", not "Critical". That's because there are multiple levels of protection, kinda like those in OpenBSD and SELinux. Remember, NSA had a say in Vista's design. There is Mandatory Integrity Control (something not widely known, I believe it's separate from UAC and is mostly under-the-hood stuff), Address Space Randomization, buffer guards, low-integrity for IE, reduced privileges for services, nothing can escalate without an in-your-face irritating UAC (Union Aerospace Corporation, anyone?) prompt, and of course, lots of pixie dust I can't talk about. So in case there's a buffer overflow (take the ANI bug for instance) - there are a few layers of mitigation that seem almost unbreakable *AT THIS TIME*. I'm yet to read news about a pwned Vista box. I'm sure it's possible that some clever guy somewhere will write an exploit that dodges all that stuff, but it obviously is taking much, much longer than with any other OS, except, of course, for OpenBSD (kudos there) :) . Of course there will be bugs in legacy code that are still there. But layered security and systematic elimination of bugs work.

    Microsoft *did* hire some of the best security experts available lately. And I can say it shows. At least now I feel not very scared to use IE when I have to.

    Then of course, everyone loves "Free Games!!!11eleven", mushy-mushy desktop pets, free trial CDs, free money from your late uncle from central Boozemania or whatever. If your user account gets pwned, and your user has access inside the network of your company, you're toast no matter what OS you run.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Close