Search Results

Search found 91593 results on 3664 pages for 'user permissions'.

Page 3/3664 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Giving a normal user and Mysql access to a common directory

    - by James R
    We need a common directory where Mysql can do a SELECT INTO OUTFILE and then the file can be picked up by a virtual server user in /home/theuser and worked on. I can perform the SELECT INTO OUTFILE into the /tmp/ dir but theuser does not have access here. Would it be ok to grant the user access to tmp or is that bad practice? The other option I looked at was creating a group 'theusermysql' containing the mysql user and theuser. I set the group on the tree /home/theuser/thedumpfolder and gave write permissions on thedumpfolder, but for some reason mysql still complains that it cannot write here. I'm completely stumped! What would be the best practice way to have a common folder for these two users?

    Read the article

  • How to set an executable white list?

    - by izabera
    Under Linux, is it possible to set a white-list of executables for a certain group of users? I need them to be unable to use, for example, make, gcc and executables on removable disks. How can this be done? Edit, let me explain better. I'm dealing with a high school IT system, young geeks that (during the lessons) want to play, surf the net, damage those computer however they can. The major step to achieve this goal was to remove the system they're familiar with and install Ubuntu in all the computers. This actually works quite well, but recent events proved that this is not enough. I want to allow them to execute certain safe programs, like Open Office, and to deny any other program, whether it is preinstalled software, something they carry in usb drives, a downloaded program or a script they program on site. It's possible to remove the 'x' permission on any file on the pc, but of course it would be impractical. Furthermore, they would be able to run anything they download. I thought the best solution would be to make a white-list of safe programs and to deny anything else, but I don't really know how to do it. Any idea is helpful.

    Read the article

  • How to add an SSH user to my Ubuntu 12 server to upload PHP files

    - by user229209
    I have an Ubuntu 12 VPS and wanted to create a user account to upload and download my PHP code. So when logged in as root I created a user "chris" and then created a directory /var/www/chris I want "chris" to be able to upload and run files to the /var/www/chris directory. Permissions for the chris dir look like this: drwxrwxr-x 2 root chris 4096 Aug 20 03:35 chris As root I created a sample file called abc.php and put it in the chris dir. It worked fine when I test it in a browser. I logged in as chris and uploaded a file called 1234.php. That did not work. I just got a blank PHP page. The code was identical in both files. So it is not the code. The permissions now look like this: -rw-r--r-- 1 root chris 59 Aug 20 03:34 1234.php -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 49 Aug 20 03:21 abc.php How do I alow the "chris" user to upload files and get them to work?

    Read the article

  • Give access to specific services on Windows 7 Professional machines?

    - by Chad Cook
    We have some machines running Windows 7 Professional at our office. The typical user needs to have access to stop and start a service for a local program they run. These machines have a local web server and database installed and we need to restrict access to certain folders and services related to the web server and database for these users. The setup I have tried so far is to add the typical user as a Power User. I have been able to successfully restrict them from accessing certain folders (as far as I can tell) but now they do not have access to the service needed for starting and stopping the local program. My thought was to give them access to the specific service but I have not had any luck yet. In searching the web for solutions the only results I have found relate to Windows Server 2000 and 2003 and involve creating security templates and databases through the Microsoft Management Console. I am hesitant to try an approach like this as these articles are typically older and I worry this method is outdated. Is there a better way to accomplish the end goal of giving the user permission to run the service and restrict their access to certain folders? If any clarification is needed on the setup or what we are trying to achieve, please let me know. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to make a directory with permanent permissions different from default

    - by Carlos Fernández San Millán
    I have system-wide default permissions set with umask 027. I am in the need to make a directory whose sub-directories would need 775 permission and whose files would need 664 permissions and make these permissions permanent after booting the system. I am looking for the best options out there without compromising security. Any ideas? Thank you. Some research done: sudo chfn -o "umask=002" daemon_username bash script running at boot with umask 022 on the desired directory

    Read the article

  • What does it mean when a User-Agent has another User-Agent inside it?

    - by Erx_VB.NExT.Coder
    Basically, sometimes the user-agent will have its normal user-agent displayed, then at the end it will have teh "User-Agent: " tag displayed, and right after it another user-agent is shown. Sometimes, the second user-agent is just appended to the first one without the "User-Agent: " tag. Here are some samples I've seen: The first few contain the "User-Agent: " tag in the middle somewhere, and I've changed its font to make it easier to to see. Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; GTB6; User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506) Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6; MRA 5.10 (build 5339); User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727) Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152) Here are some without the "User-Agent: " tag in the middle, but just two user agents that seem stiched together. Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; Trident/4.0; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); .NET CLR 3.5.30729) Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6; IPMS/6568080A-04A5AD839A9; TCO_20090713170733; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1); InfoPath.2) Now, just to add a few notes to this. I understand that the "User-Agent: " tag is normally a header, and what follows a typical "User-Agent: " string sequence is the actual user agent that is sent to servers etc, but normally the "User-Agent: " string should not be part of the actual user agent, that is more like the pre-fix or a tag indicating that what follows will be the actual user agent. Additionally, I may have thought, hey, these are just two user agents pasted together, but on closer inspection, you realize that they are not. On all of these dual user agent listings, if you look at the opening bracket "(" just before the "compatible" keyword, you realize the pair to that bracket ")" is actually at the very end, the end of the second user agent. So, the first user agents closing bracket ")" never occurs before the second user agent begins, it's always right at the end, and therefore, the second user agent is more like one of the features of the first user agent, like: "Trident/4.0" or "GTB6" etc etc... The other thing to note that the second user agent is always MSIE 6.0 (Internet Explorer 6.0), interesting. What I had initially thought was it's some sort of Virtual Machine displaying the browser in use & the browser that is installed, but then I thought, what'd be the point in that? Finally, right now, I am thinking, it's probably soem sort of "Compatibility View" type thing, where even if MSIE 7.0 or 8.0 is installed, when my hypothetical the "Display In Internet Explorer 6.0" mode is turned on, the user agent changes to something like this. That being, IE 8.0 is installed, but is rendering everything as IE 6.0 would. Is there or was there such a feature in Internet Explorer? Am I on to something here? What are your thoughts on this? If you have any other ideas, please feel free to let us know. At the moment, I'm just trying to understand if these are valid User Agents, or if they are invalid. In a list of about 44,000 User Agents, I've seen this type of Dual User Agent about 400 times. I've closely inspected 40 of them, and every single one had MSIE 6.0 as the "second" user agent (and the first user agent a higher version of MSIE, such as 7 or 8). This was true for all except one, where both user agents were MSIE 8.0, here it is: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Win32; GMX); GTB0.0) This occured once in my 40 "close" inspections. I've estimated the 400 in 44,000 by taking a sample of the first 4,400 user agents, and finding 40 of these in the MSIE/Windows user agents, and extrapolated that to estimate 40. There were also similar things occuring for non MSIE user agents where there were two Mozilla's in one user agent, the non MSIE ones would probably add another 30% on top of the ones I've noted. I can show you samples of them if anyone would like. There we have it, this is where I'm at, what do you guys think?

    Read the article

  • Change to different user, or let different user execute a command

    - by WG-
    I have a problem. There is a server which I can access with an account by ssh, lets say WG. Now there is a folder with the following permissions. drwxr-s---+ 855 vvz www-data 20K Aug 21 17:56 pictures I want to copy this folder using rsync, however since I am not the user www-data but WG I cannot execute rsync. So I want www-data to execute a rsync command. However, I do not posses sudo powers. My friend however tells me that I am actually able to execute the rsync command as www-data, but he will not tell me how. I asked him for some clues and he told me that it had something to do with reverse shell (which I figured out to be that you connect by ssh to your server and then you connect back to your own server, or something). I also asked if it was by-design or actually a flaw in the system. He tells me it is both. Furthermore I think it has something to do with the group permissions. If I just make sure that I am with the group permissions then I can also read the files. Anybody has a clue?

    Read the article

  • User Story or User Stories for this specific requirement

    - by Maximus
    I have to write a user story for a requirement that involves passing search filters to the same URI and retrieving corresponding results. I have 5 filters. I plan to write 5 different stories of type: As a URI user I can search by #filter1 so that I can retrieve results based on #filter1. And then a 6th story that involves searching one or more or all six filters in conjunction. Is this is a sensible route to take?

    Read the article

  • Terminal command to change permissions to my 'Sites' folder and apply change to enclosed items?

    - by Ryan
    Using Snow Leopard, I'm having issues with permissions in my Sites folder. While I can navigate to localhost/~username and read any files or folders there, the same permissions have not been applied to enclosed items, and I get a 403 error trying to access them in the browser. If I select one of these enclosed folders and get info using Finder, I see the user 'Everyone' is set to 'No Access' but I can't change that (this behavior seems buggy, actually). And if I select my 'Sites' folder, the tool to 'Apply to enclosed items' is grayed out... Is there a Terminal command I can use to grant 'Read Only' access to my Sites folder, and all it contains, for the user 'Everyone'?

    Read the article

  • Grant a user access to directories shared by root (mod: 770)

    - by Paul Dinham
    I want to grant a user (username: paul) access to all directories shared by root with mod 770. I do it this way: groups root (here comes a list of groups in which root user is) usermod -a -G group1 paul usermod -a -G group2 paul usermod -a -G group3 paul ... All the 'group1', 'group2', 'group3' are seen in the group list of root user. However, after adding 'paul' to all groups above, he still can not write to directories shared by root user with mod 770. Did I do it wrongly?

    Read the article

  • Unix Permissions: Enable access to files no matter the user?

    - by TK Kocheran
    I've been using Linux for a long time and I still am completely in the dark about how file permissions really work. With that in mind, does anyone have any books or thorough guides I could read to really understand things completely? I've done my fair share of sysadminning, so I know the easy stuff like making directories readable and writable, making files executable, and changing the owner of a file, but on sharing files across users, I'm lost. Here's my main problem. I have a number of machines across which I intend to synchronize my music library. I've been using Unison for a while now and it's a great choice as I can easily run it over SSH on my local network which I just set up. Win-win. Up until this point, I've been synchronizing computers using a 2TB external hard drive. (computer 1 unisons to HD, computer 2 unisons to HD, etc.) This is tedious at best, especially since I encrypted the drive, making it a huge hassle to hook it up to all of my machines and sync it. Anyway, the drive is running ext4 (in TrueCrypt), so it maintains all Unix filesystem info like owners and groups. I just set up a new machine and just Unison'd it to get the music on it, and I realized that now, all of my permissions are fubar. I had to run Unison as root since that was the only way I could get the files to come off of the external drive. Apparently, since I'm using a different user name on this machine than my usual "rfkrocktk" across all machines, this essentially throws a huge wrench in the gears. Here's my use case. This laptop has two effective users, "leandra" and "rfkrocktk". I want to share music between these two users, so I symlinked /home/rfkrocktk/Music to point to /home/leandra/Music. How do I (a) allow both users access to read/write/delete files in this folder, and (b) keep everything nicely in sync without messing up file ownership?

    Read the article

  • Would this hack for per-object permissions in django work?

    - by Edward
    According to the documentation, a class can have the meta option permissions, described as such: Options.permissions Extra permissions to enter into the permissions table when creating this object. Add, delete and change permissions are automatically created for each object that has admin set. This example specifies an extra permission, can_deliver_pizzas: permissions = (("can_deliver_pizzas", "Can deliver pizzas"),) This is a list or tuple of 2-tuples in the format (permission_code, human_readable_permission_name). Would it be possible to define permissions at run time by: permissions = (("can_access_%s" % self.pk, / "Has access to object %s of type %s" % (self.pk,self.__name__)),) ?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for web server user/group permissions

    - by Poe
    What's the best practice in a secure manner to setup the user/group and permissions? Here's what we currently have; web server runs as www/www. Fastcgi Php runs as www/www. User's shell/ftp account is username/username. We want the user to be able to have full access to all files, including those created by the web server 'www' from the shell or ftp. Similarly, we want the scripts run by fastcgi/php to be able to create files in user created directories and modify user created files.

    Read the article

  • Samba Server Make Multiple User Permissions Profiles

    - by Scriptonaut
    I have a Samba file server running, and I was wondering how I could make multiple user accounts that have different permissions. For example, at the moment I have a user, smbusr, but when I ssh to the share, I can read, write, execute, and even navigate out of the samba directory and do stuff on the actual computer. This is bad because I want to be able to give out my IP so friends/family can use the server, but I don't want them to be able to do just anything. I want to lock the user in the samba share directory(and all the sub directories). Eventually I would like several profiles such as (smbusr_R, smbusr_RW, smbguest_R, smbguest_RW). I also have a second question related to this, is SSH the best method to connect from other unix machines? What about VPN? Or simply mounting like this: mount -t ext3 -o user=username //ipaddr/share /mnt/mountpoint Is that mounting command above the same thing as a vpn? This is really confusing me. Thanks for the help guys, let me know if you need to see any files, or need anymore information.

    Read the article

  • How to create a new user group and add user to it in Ubuntu 12.04

    - by Omal Lasitha
    My OS is Ubuntu 12.04.1 Desktop version (32bit). I want to create a new group called restricted which allows its users to use Audio devices and Video devices only, and I want to add a user called visitors to that group. By using Users and Groups, I was able to create a new user account called visitors, and a new group called restricted. But I can't figure out how to add those settings to the group restricted, and add the visitors user account to that group. I tried Google-ing, but every search result was about accessing root privileges and all, and I couldn't find answers on this specific topic.

    Read the article

  • Configuring permissions with Bastille

    - by Lucio
    I was using Bastille to improve the security of OS and I found the next question there I don't know if I should answer for YES or NOT: Questions: Would you like to set more restrictive permissions on the administration utilities? Explanation: In general, the default file permissions set by most vendors are fairly secure. To make them more secure, though, you can remove non-root user access to some administrator functions. If you choose this option, you'll be changing the permissions on some common system administration utilities so that they're not readable or executable by users other than root. These utilities (which include linuxconf, fsck, ipconfig, runlevel and portmap) are ones that most users could never have a need to access. This option will increase your system security, but there's a chance it will inconvenience your users. My users: When I installed Ubuntu I had create a user (admin), then I was able to create another user (people) but I cannot change the permissions of this user. Questions: The user there I am using like admin it's not the root, right? The effects of this option will affect to the two users (admin & people) or just to people?

    Read the article

  • User roles in GWT applications

    - by csaffi
    Hi everybody, I'm wondering if you could suggest me any way to implement "user roles" in GWT applications. I would like to implement a GWT application where users log in and are assigned "roles". Based on their role, they would be able to see and use different application areas. Here are two possible solution I thought: 1) A possible solution could be to make an RPC call to the server during onModuleLoad. This RPC call would generate the necessary Widgets and/or place them on a panel and then return this panel to the client end. 2) Another possible solution could be to make an RPC call on login retrieving from server users roles and inspecting them to see what the user can do. What do you think about? Thank you very much in advance for your help!

    Read the article

  • Handling permissions in a MVP application

    - by Chathuranga
    In a windows forms payroll application employing MVP pattern (for a small scale client) I'm planing user permission handling as follows (permission based) as basically its implementation should be less complicated and straight forward. NOTE : System could be simultaneously used by few users (maximum 3) and the database is at the server side. This is my UserModel. Each user has a list of permissions given for them. class User { string UserID { get; set; } string Name { get; set; } string NIC {get;set;} string Designation { get; set; } string PassWord { get; set; } List <string> PermissionList = new List<string>(); bool status { get; set; } DateTime EnteredDate { get; set; } } When user login to the system it will keep the current user in memory. For example in BankAccountDetailEntering view I control the controller permission as follows. public partial class BankAccountDetailEntering : Form { bool AccountEditable {get; set;} private void BankAccountDetailEntering_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { cmdEditAccount.enabled = false; OnLoadForm (sender, e); // Event fires... If (AccountEditable ) { cmdEditAccount.enabled=true; } } } In this purpose my all relevant presenters (like BankAccountDetailPresenter) should aware of UserModel as well in addition to the corresponding business Model it is presenting to the View. class BankAccountDetailPresenter { BankAccountDetailEntering _View; BankAccount _Model; User _UserModel; DataService _DataService; BankAccountDetailPresenter( BankAccountDetailEntering view, BankAccount model, User userModel, DataService dataService ) { _View=view; _Model = model; _UserModel = userModel; _DataService = dataService; WireUpEvents(); } private void WireUpEvents() { _View.OnLoadForm += new EventHandler(_View_OnLoadForm); } private void _View_OnLoadForm(Object sender, EventArgs e) { foreach(string s in _UserModel.PermissionList) { If( s =="CanEditAccount") { _View.AccountEditable =true; return; } } } public Show() { _View.ShowDialog(); } } So I'm handling the user permissions in the presenter iterating through the list. Should this be performed in the Presenter or View? Any other more promising ways to do this? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Grant permission for specific other AD users to unlock/log out user from PC

    - by Simon Needham
    What I'm looking to do is permission a Windows PC (ideally XP but if a later OS version is required so be it) so that a select group of users can unlock the machine, logging the current user out. This something that a Local Admin for the machine would be able to do from a locked screen, however, I'd like to avoid granting Local Admin rights to this group of users if I can. The background here is that this machine is 80% used by one person but is treated as a 'shared machine' on days that the primary user is not around. It's usefull that everybody using the machine can carry on using their own accounts with all the personalisations they are used to. I'd also like to void logging the primary user out every night. No one else in the firm has to put up with that and she does use the machine herself most of the time.

    Read the article

  • Default file permissions for php user www-data

    - by John Isaacks
    I have a php installed on my ubuntu machine. The web root is /var/www I set the permissions for this folder like so: sudo chown -R ftpuser:www-data /var/www ftpuser is the user I set up so I can ftp to /var/www from another machine on the network. www-data is the user php uses. I double checked using whoami from php. Whenever I ftp upload a new file to the machine the group has no permissions to the file. So when I try to access it in my browser via machine-name/new-file.php I am told permission denied and I have to go and chmod the new file. I am wondering if there is a way I can default the www-data user/group to have access permissions to new files so I don't have to keep chmod every new file?

    Read the article

  • Ubuntu took away permissions from my Data partition

    - by RobinJ
    The pangolin has struck again. The bug of the day for today is Ubuntu taking away my permissions on my Data partition (NTFS). One moment everything worked fine, the next moment I couldn't chmod anything anymore. chown throws no errors or warnings at all, but nothing has changed either. chmod keeps saying Operation not permitted. I've been messing around with /etc/fstab as suggested by other answers on AskUbuntu, but none of them seem to have the desired effect. This is my current line: UUID=25D7D681409A96B7 /media/Data ntfs defaults,umask=000,gid=46,permissions,users,auto,exec 0 0 For reference, this is the original one: UUID=25D7D681409A96B7 /media/Data ntfs defaults,umask=007,gid=46 0 0 (right after the problem started occuring) What do I need to do so I am the owner of my own hard drive again? I want to be able to just use chmod and chown (without sudo) without being told that some mysterious alien has taken over control of my Data partition. I can still read and write, but execution permissions seem to be the problem.

    Read the article

  • Nautilus uses different permissions for mounted drives

    - by farhad0011
    I've written two bash scripts to give read-only or read/write access to my NTFS partition: read-only access: sudo umount /media/Data_Drive/ sudo mount -t ntfs-3g -o ro,user,auto,nls=utf8,umask=0000,uid=1000 /dev/sda2 /media/Data_Drive read/write access: sudo umount /media/Data_Drive/ sudo mount -t ntfs-3g -o rw,user,auto,nls=utf8,umask=0000,uid=1000 /dev/sda2 /media/Data_Drive It works perfectly if I only use terminal to work with the files. It also works with Nautilus in read-only mode but not in the read/write mode. In fact, Nautilus gives me an error when I try to copy a file to Data_Drive saying "The destination is read-only". More funny, when I look at the permissions (by right-clicking on Data_Drive and then properties-permissions) I have all the required permissions to write a file in Data_Drive! I am so confused why Nautilus behaves strangely. I appreciate if anybody could solve the mystery!

    Read the article

  • Design Application to "Actively" Invite Users (pretend they have privileges)

    - by user3086451
    I am designing an application where users message one another privately, and may send messages to any Entity in the database (an Entity may not have a user account yet, it is a professional database). I am not sure how to best design the database and the API to allow messaging unregistered users. The application should remain secure, and data only accessed by those with correct permissions. Messages sent to persons without user accounts serve as an invitation. The invited person should be able to view the message, act on it, and complete the user registration upon receiving an InviteMessage. In simple terms, I have: User misc user fields (email, pw, dateJoined) Entity (large professional dataset): personalDetails... user->User (may be null) UserMessage: sender->User recipient->User dateCreated messageContent, other fields..... InviteMessage: sender->User recipient->Entity expiringUrl inviteeEmail inviteePhone I plan to alert the user when selecting a recipient that is not registered yet, and inform that he may send the message as an invitation by providing email, phone where we can send the invitation. Invitations will have a unique, one-time-use URL, e.g. uuid.uuid4(). When accessed, the invitee will see the InviteMessage and details about completing his/her registration profile. When registration is complete, InviteMessage details to a new instance of UserMessage (to not lose their data), and assign it to the newly created User. The ability to interact with and invite persons who do not yet have accounts is a key feature of the application, and it seems better to separate the invitation from the private, app messages (easier to keep functionality separate, better if data model changes). Is this a reasonable, good design? If not, what would you suggest? Do you have any improvements? Am I correct to choose to create a separate endpoint for creating invitations via the API?

    Read the article

  • User account that is not allowed to edit one file on Ubuntu

    - by spacemonkey
    Hi, I wanted to ask if it is possible to create a user account on Ubuntu so that it had all powers and rights of root account except it would be impossible to edit a certain file. What I intend to do is to edit host file in order to block access of certain websites, and then create a user account which would be the same as root account except it would be not able to edit host file. Maybe there is an easier way to block an access of certain sites forever? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • configure apache/webdav readonly for user x, read/write for user y

    - by user82296
    I'm using Apache 2.2 on RHEL 6.x. I can get webdav setup as readonly for user x or readwrite for user x but can't figure out how to make it read only for user x and read/write for user y. I just have a single folder /var/www/html/davtest owned by apache:apache and I want myUser to have readonly access and myAdmin to have read/write access. So far I've only been able to control this by modifying the permissions on the dir /var/www/html/davtest (e.g. if apache has rw then no matter how I set limitExcept below either user can read/write Is this in general possible? <Directory /var/www/html/davtest > DAV on Options Indexes AuthType Digest AuthName myAuth AuthDigestDomain /myD/ http://mysys.x.y/davtest AuthDigestProvider file AuthUserFile /var/www/davDigest/dav_pw require user readOnlyUser <limitExcept get head options> require user myAdmin </limitExcept> </Directory> I've tried various permutations with Limit, LimitExcept and it appears that the only thing that determines who can read/write to the share are the permissions on the files/folders in the share. any guidance, pointers to docs would be greatly appreciated. thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >