PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Just one final AO thread and I'll stop! I promise!
July 6th 2001, 17:53 CEST by Morn

<a href="http://www.anarchy-online.com">Anarchy Online</a> is a new "massively multiplayer" online RPG that has been out for a week, suffering from extreme stability issues. Things have improved a bit during the last couple of days though, with much less server lag and disconnections than before. However, one of the biggest problems AO players are still facing is the amazingly long time it can take to actually <i>get into</i> the game due to a horribly overloaded login handler.

The <a href="http://www.telusplanet.net/public/prysym/aotron/index.html">AO Server Test-O-Tron</a> is a little 3rd party tool that tells you just how "online" Anarchy Online actually is.

And today, on the <a href="http://www.telusplanet.net/public/prysym/aotron/index.html">Test-A-Tron website</a>, you can find this little comedy gem:

Sorry guys. When I got home from work today and checked my E-mail, I found a very polite message from Hans Terje Bakke, VP of Product Operations at Funcom.

I won't go into details, but suffice to say that they have asked me to limit the use of the Test-O-Tron as much as I can, and I agree with them. Apparently, out of a thousand connections, only two actually try to authenticate! The problem, apparently, is more serious than I thought.

In the immortal words of Kaiser Wilhelm II: "Hahahahahahahahahahahahah, the FOOLS!"

Anyway, to justify starting a new PC thread, here's something actually worthy of discussion (or maybe not). The message on the site continues with this:

In exchange, Funcom is going to set up an agent which will host data for applications such as the Test-O-Tron very soon. He gave me a short list of some
of the information that would be provided, and some of it's pretty damn cool. Here's the list I was given:

» News Messages
» Server Status Messages
» Server Manager Status (up/down)
» Percentage of total servers running
» Political Distribution (% omni/clan/neutral)
» Status for areas such as cities
» Chat Server Status

I am also coordinating with him to see what other information
they can provide us with. Rest assured, as soon as this new server is up, I'll be rewriting the Test-O-Tron to use it.

The question is, wouldn't that make it ridiculously easy for Funcom to provide fake information to the clients that query this "agent"?
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Just one final AO thread and I'll stop! I promise!

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Morn"
2001-07-06 17:54:38
morn@planetcrap.com http://www.planetcrap.com
I don't think they'd do it. So please don't flame me. But I think it's still an interesting question.

Another interesting question is: if this little server tester can cause so much trouble, it apparently is very easy to run DoS attacks against Anarchy Online's servers... :/

- Morn
#2 by "Ergo"
2001-07-06 18:02:41
stu@dsl-only.net
For the love of all that is holy, no more!!!
#3 by "Houston"
2001-07-06 18:07:21
houstonx@pacbell.net http://www.blowthedotoutyourass.com
Interesting, but... I'm not so sure about these applications

my favorite test for seeing if the server up has always been starting the game up and trying to log in, but, I'm wacky that way

Besides, one of the server checking pages has reported the server as being down for the past 5 hours, but, looks plenty up to me.
#4 by "Preacher"
2001-07-06 18:16:25
preacher@unreality.org http://www.unreality.org
Just stop playing that crap game, and stick to Asheron's Call. :)
#5 by "BarneyQue"
2001-07-06 18:19:27
barneyque@hotmail.com
Personally, while I don't play mmorpgs, I certainly have my ear to the ground enough to get a feel for how these things go.

I think we should all wait about a month for several things to happen.

1. Lets get the initial rush behind us.

2. Let them discover that the load was higher than expected (funny how that happens to all of them)

3. Let them Either buy enough hardware and throughput to deal with number one, or have it settle down to what I would call 'run rates' rather than 'startup rates'.  

If say after another month, it's not running smoothly, then they should get another PC topic.  :)

But I consider the current issues to be practically normal operating proccedures for a title of this type.

As for the current issue at hand, they probably don't want people to have detailed info like that to start since it probably fans flames of discontent, and provides ammo for the lose cannon who's got a lawyer on retainer with nothing better to do.

#6 by "Lum"
2001-07-06 18:37:25
scottj@mythicentertainment.com
UO had a similar thingy called UO Trace. It actually does traceroutes to various servers though - UO's servers are in different geographical locations, so you can determine which one is the best.

http://www.blackcastlesoft.com/uotrace/
#7 by "Darkseid-D"
2001-07-06 18:48:16
Darkseid@Captured.com www.sluggy.com
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.


Ds


#8 by "Whisp"
2001-07-06 19:07:26
GSI is bad, m'kay!  Oh wait, this topic isn't about GSI?  Doh.  Guess I'll have to wait.

-Whisp
#9 by "Greg"
2001-07-06 20:05:00
greg417@worldnet.att.net http://www.insidemacgames.com
Morn, the obvious answer to your question is yes. Of course they could fake the data. Though it will be pretty obvious when you can't connect to their login servers/game servers, but the agent returns no connection problems. It really isn't in their best interest to return false information.

However, if they solve their server problems, won't this tool be unnecessary?

Greg
#10 by "TheToadWarrior"
2001-07-06 20:36:50
toadwarrior@hotmail.com http://www.toadwarrior.org
Gamespy supported Hitler in WWII and they still continue to kill Jews to this day. We must stop them!
#11 by "asspennies"
2001-07-06 21:06:20
asspennies@counter-strike.net http://www.asspennies.org/
#9 "Greg" wrote...
Morn, the obvious answer to your question is yes. Of course they could fake the data. Though it will be pretty obvious when you can't connect to their login servers/game servers, but the agent returns no connection problems. It really isn't in their best interest to return false information.


Have you ever checked ICQ's network status page?  About a month ago they had a major outage and not a single person could log on for hours.  But according to that page, everything was AOK.  AO?  GET IT?  AAHAHAHahahaha. ha.

So not only is ICQ's page designed to be as infuriatingly difficult as possible to navigate, it also is a house of lies.

Will a company lie to save face, and is bold-faced lying almost always in a company's best interest?  Oh, you betcha.
#12 by "None-1a"
2001-07-06 21:13:45
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a
#3 "Houston" wrote...
my favorite test for seeing if the server up has always been starting the game up and trying to log in, but, I'm wacky that way


Not much of a geek are you, going and using the simplest solution.
#13 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-07-06 21:27:33
warren@epicgames.com epicboy.flipcode.com
None-1a (#12):
#3 "Houston" wrote...
my favorite test for seeing if the server up has always been starting the game up and trying to log in, but, I'm wacky that way


Not much of a geek are you, going and using the simplest solution.

Besides doing it that way will wear out your CD.

Sorry.  :)
#14 by "BarneyQue"
2001-07-06 21:46:29
barneyque@hotmail.com
#13 "Warren Marshall" wrote...
None-1a (#12):

#3 "Houston" wrote...

my favorite test for seeing if the server up has always been starting the game up and trying to log in, but, I'm wacky that way


Not much of a geek are you, going and using the simplest solution.

Besides doing it that way will wear out your CD.

Sorry. :)


Heheh
#15 by "crash"
2001-07-06 23:08:44
crash@planetcrap.com
kind of sad, really. so Funcom doesn't want AOTron to work any more. gee, i can't think of another service or utility that could do the same thing. can you?

as for the "we're going to filter information" part, i'm not really too concerned about it; anyone that's savvy enough to have AOTron running is going to know how to do tracert, or use any of the other utils above, anyway. and few of those that aren't will care.

and as a pre-emptive, here are the IPs you'll want for AO (unless, of course, they change this soon, which i somehow doubt):

216.74.158.11   lh.d1.funcom.com
216.74.158.23   download.anarchy-online.com
216.74.158.24   downloads.anarchy-online.com
216.74.158.11   dimensions.anarchy-online.com

network coding is unfair to some and whatnot. what's really ironic is that if they'd just get the server situation fixed, no one would have to use these tools at all, because the servers would be up and you wouldn't need to query 'em to see if they were or not.
#16 by "crash"
2001-07-06 23:10:23
crash@planetcrap.com
oh and hey Lum congrats on the Mythic gig. was going to post on your boards and say that, but the thread got a tad on the long side.
#17 by "JMCDaveL"
2001-07-06 23:14:29
jmcdavel@mailandnews.com http://www.cosmicrift.com
ICQ's website is one of the most horrible things I have ever encountered. Pray that noone tries to use the web-pager function and needs you to come to your "personal chatroom" (it's happened with ICQ-less friends before", half the time it doesn't even work. And don't even attempt to any worthwhile user-directory searching, it gives you random samplings of results, and usually dies after a few pages requiring you to do it all over again.

Damn shame really.

--jmc
~icq uin 121684~
#18 by "Greg"
2001-07-06 23:21:01
greg417@worldnet.att.net http://www.insidemacgames.com
#9 "asspennies" wrote:
Have you ever checked ICQ's network status page? About a month ago they had a major outage and not a single person could log on for hours. But according to that page, everything was AOK. AO? GET IT? AAHAHAHahahaha. ha.

So not only is ICQ's page designed to be as infuriatingly difficult as possible to navigate, it also is a house of lies.

Will a company lie to save face, and is bold-faced lying almost always in a company's best interest? Oh, you betcha.

Now there is a big difference between ICQ and Anarchy Online. You see, ICQ is free. I can go and grab it and use it whenever I feel like, and I don't give them any of my money. So if they are offline, well, I'm not paying for it, so I shouldn't expect anything out of them.

If I were to buy Anarchy Online, I would expect the game to be stable, and uptimes to be reduced to a minimum, and downtimes to be acknowledged. I am, after all, paying for this. If I get frustrated enough with AO, I would stop playing, and at the same time, stop paying. Dropping off of ICQ doesn't really hurt Mirabilis' bottom line, since I am not contributing any money to them. If I were to stop playing AO, and enough people do as well, it hurts them. Bad. So I would beg to differ that ICQ and AO are different.

Greg
#19 by "Whisp"
2001-07-06 23:59:47
#15 crash wrote...
kind of sad, really. so Funcom doesn't want AOTron to work any more

I don't know, it sounded to me more like AOTron was generating lots of extra traffic, and contributing to the problem it was trying to solve.  FunCom explained it to the author, and he realized that they were right.  It wasn't that they thought what he was trying to do was bad, just the way he implemented it.  If they were just going to be asses about it, all they needed to do was send a cease and desist, not offer to set up a server that broadcast server info.

-Whisp
#20 by "crash"
2001-07-07 01:50:30
crash@planetcrap.com
Whisp: i agree that server-pinging and traceroute utils add a lot of overhead to the login server. what i disagree with is that AOTron is the only problem in that regard... and even Windows comes with built-in apps that do the exact same thing, albeit less persistently.

rather than pass the buck to a 3rd party, why not just fix the thing so it works? wow. there's a novel concept. :)
#21 by "Foogla"
2001-07-07 03:42:22
Foogla@gmx.de
One Game. One Cisco 7000 Router. One pipe. 39,000 fans. \"DDoS: The Movie\" . Now playing on the Exodus Backbone.

Again, props to Xian.
#22 by "EricFate"
2001-07-07 08:01:35
ericfate@yahoo.com
Aieeeeee!

Why did I visit that thread.  Almost every response after Xian is identical. I'll save everyone else the trouble and just paraphrase them all:

"I don't know anything at all about the subject, but here's some unrelated material I just made up to show you how wrong you must be."
#23 by "None-1a"
2001-07-07 08:07:05
none1a@home.com http://www.geocities.com/none-1a
#13 "Warren Marshall" wrote...
Besides doing it that way will wear out your CD.

Sorry. :)


I guess your right, and aww heck no graphics card ram thrashing as well.
#24 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-07-15 10:21:41
warren@epicgames.com epicboy.flipcode.com
OK, this thread is basically dead, so I'll spam here ...

I figured I might want to use a firewall for my connection here at home.  So I picked up McAfee Firewall.  I installed it and all went well.  It asked me to allow applications access as they asked for it ... which worked fine and soon I was free to move on.  Or so I thought.  3 problems ...

1.  ICQ won't connect.  I assume this is a setup problem on my part.

2.  It insists on popping up a status window every minute or so to proudly tell me that, "Hey!  There's been internet traffic!".  Yeah dumbass, ME!  And I don't see any way to shut it off.

3.  It slows my connect to about 30% the speed of what it once was.

Can anyone recommend a GOOD firewall that I can use on Win2K?
#25 by "Darkseid-D"
2001-07-15 14:59:47
Darkseid@Captured.com www.sluggy.com
icq wont connect as you havent opened the port it needs.


With firewalls you have three choices, the simple but effective like zonealarm pro and BlackIce, which Mr Steve 'XP SOCKETS ARE THE DEVIL' Gibson can be bypassed easily. I beg to differ zone alarm pro and MooSofts The Cleaner running in combo will stop most nasty trojan style attacks.

Then you have Macfee and Nortons personal firewall packages which to be honest, and judging from the grief I had setting Nortons up, arent worth the hassle. Clunky and annoying, having to go through a manual setup of a DMZ for just home use isnt worth the time Id spend on it.

Finally you have the commercial products like GateKeeper and CastleGuard, the ones you use to protect yourself on a company sized basis. Expensive, a tad obscure but very useful indeed, when you can set access rules and tie then to random sync sequence keyfobs for dial in access.

Of course, youre bound to get a linux weenie pop up and suggest scrapping win2k and installing linux so you can use inbuilt NAT and some ipchains....

Ds
#26 by "Desiato"
2001-07-15 17:02:42
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com Nope....dammit
Warren Marshall (#24):
OK, this thread is basically dead, so I'll spam here ...

I figured I might want to use a firewall for my connection here at home. So I picked up McAfee Firewall. I installed it and all went well. It asked me to allow applications access as they asked for it ... which worked fine and soon I was free to move on. Or so I thought. 3 problems ...

1. ICQ won't connect. I assume this is a setup problem on my part.

2. It insists on popping up a status window every minute or so to proudly tell me that, "Hey! There's been internet traffic!". Yeah dumbass, ME! And I don't see any way to shut it off.

3. It slows my connect to about 30% the speed of what it once was.

Can anyone recommend a GOOD firewall that I can use on Win2K?


Darkseid is right - ICQ will just open a port nilly-willy and you have to accomodate that somehow...some of the
more advanced firewalll software will allow you to set "trusted apps" so whatever port is opened internally, as long as its done by the application you approve, it won't matter. The Linksys 4-port Router/switch will do this automatically, although I know you're looking for software -- just an example.

Gauntlet Firewall is nice, you can do some cool ip-filter/inspection options with it. ZoneAlarm is a good "front line" at least you can tell it to go to hell when it alerts you to someone throwing ping/ICMP packets your way. I do think that a combination as Darkseid suggested would be good. If you do have a box to spare - you could set up your own NAT/Firewall box on whatever OS you choose...or just bite the bullet and get a Router/Switched hub (most are under the $200 mark) and get some actual hardware between you and the net.

I've had good experience with Linksys, but I'm sure there are others from low end like Netgear -- all the way up to the MegaBucks Cisco stuff...

Oh, if you're in need of a sniffer to see what application is opening what port -- there is a free one called "Ethereal" that will let you figure that out without dropping more bucks for software...yes, its a win32 compiled opensource prog, but other than installing the capture driver on your TCP/IP stack and the GiMP graphics libraries, it isn't too painful of an install.

Hope that helps.

Desiato
#27 by "Gabe"
2001-07-15 20:45:21
gakruger@hotmail.com
TINY Personal Firewall

I've used this a little. Not sure how it stacks up against the others, but it seemed pretty configurable, I didn't notice much slowdown, and it is free for home use.
#28 by "BarneyQue"
2001-07-15 20:51:14
barneyque@hotmail.com
#24 "Warren Marshall" wrote...
OK, this thread is basically dead, so I'll spam here ...

1. ICQ won't connect. I assume this is a setup problem on my part.

2. It insists on popping up a status window every minute or so to proudly tell me that, "Hey! There's been internet traffic!". Yeah dumbass, ME! And I don't see any way to shut it off.

3. It slows my connect to about 30% the speed of what it once was.

Can anyone recommend a GOOD firewall that I can use on Win2K?


1) Problem one. This is a configuration problem, most firewall packages do actually work with ICQ at it's most basic level which is to connect and maintain a proper contact list, and facilitate messaging, but falter on the nifty stuff, file transfer's as en example of those. The problem is dynamic port selection. There are very few if any secure and convienient solutions to that problem, especially on personal firewalls. There are solutions that are convienient, but not secure such as opening all the high ports to incomming connections. There are secure but very inconvient methods which require you to somehow discern the requested port, and make it available, easier said than done.

Som to make it work, you need to make sure TCP port 5190 is open for bidirectional communication to login.icq.com which has more than one IP, so you probably need to leave it open for access to anyone. Doing this should take care of the basic icq operation i.e. messaging.  Getting all the goodies to work will require you to open ALL the high ports defined as 1024-65535.

I also found confilicting info claiming that you need to open UDP port 4000.  And further, I've seen info suggesting that opening a range of TCP, and UDP ports from 2000-4000  for listening, but I've not tested any of this myself.

2) So that's problem one.  It's a port thing.  Problem two, is unfortunate, I suggest contacting technical support.

3) Seeing performance drops of that level is quite unusual for any package these days. With that in mind, I'd probably send a message to planetcrap asking for options.  :)


Personal reccomendations.  I'm not sure what level of security your looking for. If you just decided that 'Hey, I have no protection, and I guess I'll look into it today".  Then I say, wow, about time, should have done this a while ago.  :)  With that out of the way.  My reccomedations vary depending on what's going on with your machine. You have a full time connection, so I definately don't reccomend going bareback, that's asking to be bent over, but you already know that.

Here's the deal, I like to practice security in layers. Relying on one line of defence is not going to cut it these days. You need a cascading wall of protection which is more of a process than a product that you set and forget.  The first line of defence, working from the inside, is what is called host based security. This can mean many things such as tuning the IP stack and enabling packet filtering, using an Intrusion Detection System (IDS), turning of unused services, uninstalling unneeded software, configuring filesystem security ownership and read/write permissions, closing ports that should not be open, and of course making sure that you are all up to date in the patchs and fixes department for the OS your using, and all the software packages installed. Once all that is done, you should have a fairly secure system provided you keep on top of it. But that's just one layer. I personally do not like to rely on a system to protect itself, I like to hide computers behind other computers which themselves are also basking in the warm glow of host based security.

In utilizing another host to stand in front of your box, and take one on the chin for it, you get to add another layer to the security soup. You get to add NAT. In this case, you employ what is specifically called a 'many to one' NAT. This takes make IP addres's typically, an entire subnet, but not always, and maps it to one IP address utilizing port translation and a lookup table to keep it all organized. For the sake of being complete, there areother types of nat, but this is the most common you will find in home networking.  NAT all by itself, is not a firewall, although lots of people will try to claim it is. But it does, if configured properly, provide a level of protection, specifically, it hides your important box with all it's precious data from port scans. Of course, your not afraid of port scans since you already turned everything off, but you can't rely on that alone since your niece will be using your computer when she visits, and forget to tell you about all the neat stuff she installed that opened a bunch of portsm and installed a nasty trojan which is secretly mapping port 23456 and others to the netbios ports, and installed a few hidden drive shares.  Your NAT will not prevent the trojan from setting up shop on your box, and calling out the majic ports to it's evil owner, but it will prevent them from reaching back in (if configured properly of course, and provided you did not open the entire high range of ports because your lazy, and want ICQ to work.)

It should be clear that security is a struggle between convience, and security. You can't have both. It's simply not possible.

since you could spend you whole life balancing the two, you need to reach a compromise. Here is what I reccomend you do.

1.  Scrap the idea of running your sole secutity solution on your main box.

2.  Buy a hardware based cable/dsl router.

3.  Run a product such as zonealarm.


Here is my thinking:

Running the security on the main box will be frustrating, and ineffective. It will only result in you trying every product known to man, and you will eventually buy a router anyway, so lets just cut to the chase, and do it. Just remember not to forget the host based security stuff.  All products have bugs, and practicing security in layers will help cover your ass between the time they become public, and the time that you install the fixes.

The router, which hopfully has features such as stateful packet inspection to ease your hassels with some ftp servers, and a few other things you dont care to know about will provide you with a NAT solution to get your machine directly off the internet, it will hopfully provide a DMZ feature that will allow you to MOMENTARILY expose your system to the wrath of the net to allow things like ICQ file transfers while the system is under your carefull watch, which you will turn off as soon as the transfer is complete.

Zonealarm will alert you to the trojan that your niece installed so you can clean things up, and not get burned during your DMZ ICQ file transfer session.


Note:  All of this is assuming you don't have your company's entire source code base sitting on your computer.  If you are planning to do stuff like work from home and what not, only communicate with the office over a secure, authenticated, encrypted tunnel, otherwise known as a VPN.


Sorry for the lecture, this is probably review material for a good number of people here, but this info should be useful for everyone. A little review never killed anyone. Part of the reason I said so much was also to get across the idea that I don't like the idea of any machine with important info being connected directly to the internet.

You might notice that my solution nowhere included a 'proper' firewall. That was intentional.  Most quality firewalls are out of the price range of home users, so their is no point in buying an affordable product that makes a pile of false claims about being one when it's not, at least not by professional standards. Properly utilizing a rule based firewall is beond the skills of most people, and will result in a system that is either so secure that you might as well cancel your isp account, or so open that you might as well have saved your money.   Just to piss off some people, and satisfy others, you could of course use a *nix box with two nic's in place of the router, but for the average joe schmoe, it's a non starter.

For the home user, a cable/dsl router, turning off drive shares, and zonealarm to catch outgoing crap is about all they need. You can never be 100%, but this is a giant step in the direction of better than nothing.

With all that in mind, I cannot reccomend a good firewall for win2k.  They exist, but you probably can't justify the price against the options I provided.
#29 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-07-15 21:00:38
warren@epicgames.com epicboy.flipcode.com
Thanks Barney, now I have a headache.  I'm going to go lie down for a while.  :)
#30 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-07-15 21:33:27
warren@epicgames.com epicboy.flipcode.com
Gabe (#27):
TINY Personal Firewall

I've used this a little. Not sure how it stacks up against the others, but it seemed pretty configurable, I didn't notice much slowdown, and it is free for home use.

Got this one, and it seems to be doing to job.  I don't notice any slowdown in my connection at all and it's popping up warning me about whatever apps want access to the net.

Funny how a free product outperforms the McAfee one.  :P
#31 by "Quicken"
2001-07-16 01:06:39
geoffrey@access.com.au http://www.warmage.com/
#25 Darkseid-D:
Of course, youre bound to get a linux weenie pop up and suggest scrapping win2k and installing linux so you can use inbuilt NAT and some ipchains....


Actually any Linux user I know would pull together parts to assemble a Pent90 or something to run the firewall on that seperate machine. If you can do that (and take the long time it takes learning to set it all  up) it'll be more secure than anything you'd be able to setup using just a single machine and you could keep running Win2k
#32 by "BabiG"
2001-07-16 03:58:04
Good god...what do you people do that needs all that security?
#33 by "Warren Marshall"
2001-07-16 04:00:53
warren@epicgames.com epicboy.flipcode.com
BabiG (#32):
Good god...what do you people do that needs all that security?

I just got concerned one day and decided to look into my options ... I can't forsee ever going to the length of getting a whole seperate machine to run my firewall, etc.  That's insane.  :)  I have a firewall program now and that's good enough for my peace of mind.
#34 by "Anonymous"
2001-08-08 10:27:30
http://refracted.com/opencrap
Blah blah testing


test

test

test
#35 by "Anonymous"
2004-12-09 10:46:37
Thinking...
#36 by jjohnsen
2004-12-09 15:08:01
http://www.johnsenclan.com
Go buy a Mac.

Actually, the liberalism of the media - as a general thing - IS a major fallacy. What the media is, is a whore.  -LP
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Just one final AO thread and I'll stop! I promise!

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]