company logo

Product

Our Product

We are Reshaping the way Developers find and fix vulnerabilities before they get exploited.

Solutions

By Industry

BFSI

Healthcare

Education

IT & Telecom

Government

By Role

CISO

Application Security Engineer

DevsecOps Engineer

IT Manager

Resources

Resource Library

Get actionable insight straight from our threat Intel lab to keep you informed about the ever-changing Threat landscape.

Subscribe to Our Weekly Threat Digest

Company

Contact Us

Have queries, feedback or prospects? Get in touch and we shall be with you shortly.

loading..
loading..
loading..
Loading...

Scam

loading..
loading..
loading..

Chinese Scammers Draining Money Exploiting India's UPI Services Providers

India's UPI services flaws exploited by Chinese scammers to launder money via Fake Loan Apps & Fraud Payment Gateways

24-Oct-2023
5 min read

No content available.

Related Articles

loading..

iCloud

Attackers exploit iCloud Calendar invites via Apple servers to deliver phishing ...

Attackers are creating **iCloud Calendar events** whose **Notes/DESCRIPTION** field contains a classic **refund/billing lure** (e.g., fake **\$599 PayPal** charge) plus a **“call us”** number. They invite a **Microsoft 365 address that’s a forwarding list**, so Apple’s servers send the calendar invite, and **Microsoft’s SRS** preserves SPF alignment when it gets forwarded. Result: the email shows **From: [noreply@email.apple.com](mailto:noreply@email.apple.com)** with **SPF, DKIM, DMARC all passing**; many gateways and users treat it as trusted. Calling the number leads to **callback social engineering** and potential **remote-access malware/financial theft**. ### Why it’s hard to block: * **Authentic infrastructure:** Source IP 17.23.6.69 is in Apple’s **17.0.0.0/8** network; DKIM=pass, DMARC=pass for `email.apple.com`. Gateways often soften inspection when major brands fully authenticate. * **Forwarding resiliency via SRS:** Microsoft 365 rewrites the **envelope sender** on forwarded mail (not the visible header), so **SPF keeps passing** after list forwarding. ([Microsoft Learn][3]) * **Legitimate feature abuse, not an exploit:** It’s a normal **iCalendar** (RFC 5545) invite with **METHOD\:REQUEST** and phishing text in the **DESCRIPTION** (Notes). No vulnerability required. ## What’s actually happening (annotated) **Observed message traits (per BleepingComputer):** * Visible sender: `noreply@email.apple.com` * **Authentication-Results** example: ``` spf=pass (sender IP is 17.23.6.69) smtp.mailfrom=email.apple.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=email.apple.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=email.apple.com; ``` * Body content carried in the **iCloud Calendar invite** (Notes/DESCRIPTION) with a **callback number** (e.g., +1-786-902-8579) and a **fake PayPal charge (\$599)**. * Target recipient: a Microsoft 365 address (likely a **mailing list**) that forwards to many recipients; Microsoft 365 applies **SRS** so **Return-Path** shows an SRS-rewritten value while the visible **From:** remains Apple. **Why the signals are green:** * **SPF** authorizes Apple IPs to send for `email.apple.com` (the envelope MAIL FROM). * **DKIM** cryptographically ties the message to `email.apple.com`. * **DMARC** aligns the visible From: with at least one passing mechanism, so it **passes**. (SPF: RFC 7208; DKIM: RFC 6376; DMARC: RFC 7489). **About Apple IP 17/8:** The sender example **17.23.6.69** sits in Apple’s long-held **17.0.0.0/8** allocation (ARIN/Apple guidance), so IP reputation alone won’t flag it. **About the calendar format:** The payload is a standard **iCalendar** object per **RFC 5545**; the **DESCRIPTION** (aka “Notes”) is simply text and can contain phone numbers, URLs, or scare-copy. Nothing exotic—just a trustworthy wrapper. ## Threat model & kill chain 1. **Setup** — Attacker creates an iCloud Calendar event; puts **lure text + callback** in DESCRIPTION (Notes). 2. **Targeting** — Invites a **Microsoft 365 list** (e.g., `Billing3@...onmicrosoft.com`) so Apple’s system sends the invite email. 3. **Delivery** — Email originates from Apple, passes **SPF/DKIM/DMARC**; after list forwarding, **SRS** retains SPF pass. 4. **Social engineering** — Victim calls; attacker escalates to **remote-access “refund” support** flow → risk of **funds theft/malware/data exfiltration**. ## What **doesn’t** work well * **Blocking by sender domain/IP**: `apple.com` + **17/8** are legitimate; you’ll break real Apple traffic. ([whois.arin.net][2]) * **Relying solely on DMARC/SPF/DKIM**: These prove **authenticity of the sender domain**, not **legitimacy of the content**. (That’s by design in the RFCs.) * **Attachment-only inspection**: Not all calendar invites are attachments (`.ics`); many are inline with **`Content-Type: text/calendar`**, so “attachment-content” rules can miss them. (Use header/content checks too.) --- ## Pragmatic defenses (enterprise) > Aim for **context-aware detections** that target *calendar messages with financial/urgent callback language*, not “Apple” as a brand. ### 1) Mail flow rules that target **calendar content** * **Condition:** *Message header includes* `Content-Type` with `text/calendar` (or *matches pattern* `text/calendar`). * **AND**: *Message body or headers include words/patterns* like `PayPal`, `charged`, `refund`, `call`, currency amounts, or phone numbers. * **Action:** prepend a warning, add high-risk SCL, or quarantine for moderation. Microsoft 365 supports **message-header** predicates and **regex** in rules; use them to key off `Content-Type` and suspicious phrases. ([Microsoft Learn][9]) **Example (conceptual) rule logic** * *If* `A message header includes` → Header name: `Content-Type` → Value contains `text/calendar` * *And* `The subject or body matches` → regex set (see below) * *Then* → Quarantine or prepend banner **Regex snippets (common English lures)** ``` # US phone numbers (+1 optional), allow separators/spaces (?i)\b(\+?1[\s\-\.]?)?\(?\d{3}\)?[\s\-\.]?\d{3}[\s\-\.]?\d{4}\b # Urgent payment/cancellation lexicon (?i)\b(paypal|charged|debited|invoice|refund|cancel|billing|transaction)\b # Currency amounts like $599.00 (?i)\$\s?\d{2,4}(\.\d{2})? ``` > Tip: Keep a separate allow-list exception **only** for known calendar partners to limit false positives. ### 2) Inspect attachments **and** inline calendar parts Where invites **are** `.ics` files, you can still use **attachment inspection** in Exchange Online; but also add **header/body** rules so inline invites are covered. (See attachment inspection & predicates docs.) ([Microsoft Learn][8]) ### 3) Advanced Hunting (Defender for O365/M365) Hunt for **calendar messages** with callback indicators. **KQL (illustrative)** ```kusto EmailEvents | where Timestamp > ago(14d) | where SenderFromDomain =~ "email.apple.com" or NetworkMessageId in ( EmailHeaders | where Name =~ "Content-Type" and tostring(Value) contains "text/calendar" | distinct NetworkMessageId ) | extend hasCallbackPhone = iff(Subject has "call", true, false) | summarize count(), any(Subject), any(SenderFromAddress) by RecipientEmailAddress | order by count_ desc ``` > Swap in body inspection via `EmailUrlInfo`/`EmailAttachmentInfo` joins where available, or use `EmailHeaders` to key on `Content-Type`. (Field availability varies by license/telemetry tier.) ### 4) User-experience hardening * **Banner external calendar messages** and teach users **“DMARC pass ≠ safe.”** * **Optional (high-risk groups):** Turn off **auto-processing** of meeting requests so invites aren’t silently added; users must accept manually, improving scrutiny. (Outlook setting under *File → Options → Mail → Tracking*). ([Microsoft Support][10]) ### 5) SOC playbook (callback phish) 1. **Contain**: Block the **callback number** at voice gateways; add to TI. 2. **Hunt**: Search for the number in **mail & chat**, and for **remote-tool beacons** post-call. 3. **Notify**: Targeted users; emphasize **do not call** unsolicited numbers. 4. **Eradicate**: Remove invites, revoke any installed remote tools, reset creds if screen-sharing occurred. --- ## Technical appendix ### A) Why this survives forwarding **Sender Rewriting Scheme (SRS)** in Microsoft 365 rewrites the **P1 (envelope) MAIL FROM** when a message is forwarded externally, preserving **SPF** when the forwarder sends on someone’s behalf. The **P2 (visible From:)** stays as the original (Apple), so **DMARC still aligns**. ([Microsoft Learn][3]) **Observed in the wild:** ``` Original Return-Path: noreply@email.apple.com Rewritten Return-Path: bounces+SRS=...@<tenant>.onmicrosoft.com ``` ([BleepingComputer][1]) ### B) iCalendar anatomy you can key on Core elements from **RFC 5545** (typical malicious invites will have these): ``` BEGIN:VCALENDAR METHOD:REQUEST BEGIN:VEVENT SUMMARY: <often a fake order/charge> DESCRIPTION: <lure text with phone # or link> ORGANIZER;CN=<iCloud user>:mailto:<...> ATTENDEE;CN=<list or target>:mailto:<...> END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR ``` Focus your rules on `Content-Type: text/calendar`, `METHOD:REQUEST`, and **DESCRIPTION** keywords. ([IETF Datatracker][4]) ### C) Why email auth won’t save you * **SPF** authorizes the sending server for the *envelope* domain. * **DKIM** attests message integrity & signer domain. * **DMARC** checks alignment of visible From: with SPF/DKIM results and applies a sender-published policy. None of these assess **message intent**; a **legit sender can send malicious content** (abuse). ([IETF Datatracker][6]) --- ## Indicators (from the report; rotate fast in practice) * **Sender/Domain:** `noreply@email.apple.com` * **Auth-Results:** `spf=pass` (IP like **17.23.6.69**), `dkim=pass` (`d=email.apple.com`), `dmarc=pass` * **Lure keywords:** “PayPal”, “\$599”, “refund”, “call/support” * **Callback example:** `+1 (786) 902-8579` Treat these as **patterns**, not fixed IOCs. ([BleepingComputer][1]) --- ## Policy & governance nudges * **Don’t globally allow-list** big-brand sender domains (Apple, Microsoft, banks). Use **tiered trust** and still apply content-based analysis. * **Voice-security integration**: Add rapid blocking of newly identified **callback numbers** at PBX/SBC, and monitor for **number re-use** patterns. * **Reporting loops**: If you’re impacted, share samples with **Apple** and your email security vendor; BleepingComputer notes Apple hadn’t commented at publish time (Sept 7, 2025). ([BleepingComputer][1]) --- ## One-page quick actions (copy/paste to ticket) 1. **Create a mail flow rule**: * *If* `Content-Type` header includes `text/calendar` **AND** Subject/Body matches regex set above → **Quarantine** or **prepend high-risk banner**. ([Microsoft Learn][9]) 2. **Hunting**: Query last 14–30 days for `From: *@email.apple.com` + `text/calendar` header; extract phone numbers; block in telephony. 3. **Awareness**: Send micro-training: *“DMARC pass means the domain is real, not that the message is safe.”* 4. **Optional**: Disable **auto-processing** of meeting requests for high-risk groups (finance/helpdesk). ([Microsoft Support][10]) --- ### Sources * BleepingComputer: **iCloud Calendar abused to send phishing emails from Apple’s servers** (Sept 7, 2025). Details of sender, headers, SRS rewrite, lure content. ([BleepingComputer][1]) * Microsoft Learn: **Sender Rewriting Scheme (SRS) in Microsoft 365** — how SRS keeps SPF passing after forwarding. ([Microsoft Learn][3]) * RFCs: **SPF (RFC 7208)**, **DKIM (RFC 6376)**, **DMARC (RFC 7489)** — authentication scope & limitations. ([IETF Datatracker][6]) * RFC 5545 / iCalendar — event format, **METHOD\:REQUEST**, **DESCRIPTION** field. ([IETF Datatracker][4], [iCalendar][5]) * Apple/ARIN: **17.0.0.0/8** allocation to Apple — confirms Apple-owned sender IP space. ([whois.arin.net][2], [Apple Support][7]) --- If you want, I can tailor the above into: * a **ready-to-ship SOC runbook** (with exact EXO rule screenshots/PowerShell), or * a **2-slide exec brief** (risk + actions) for distribution. [1]: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/icloud-calendar-abused-to-send-phishing-emails-from-apples-servers/ "iCloud Calendar abused to send phishing emails from Apple’s servers" [2]: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-17-0-0-0-1?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Whois-RWS" [3]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/reference/sender-rewriting-scheme?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Sender Rewriting Scheme (SRS) in Microsoft 365" [4]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5545?utm_source=chatgpt.com "RFC 5545 - Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core ..." [5]: https://icalendar.org/iCalendar-RFC-5545/3-7-2-method.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com "iCalendar.org - 3.7.2. Method" [6]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7208?utm_source=chatgpt.com "RFC 7208 - Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for ..." [7]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/101555?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Use Apple products on enterprise networks" [8]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/security-and-compliance/mail-flow-rules/inspect-message-attachments "Use mail flow rules to inspect message attachments in Exchange Online | Microsoft Learn" [9]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/security-and-compliance/mail-flow-rules/conditions-and-exceptions?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Mail flow rule conditions and exceptions (predicates) in ..." [10]: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/change-how-outlook-processes-read-receipts-and-meeting-responses-3e18ef46-57c0-4e49-ad89-b44ae75596ed?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Change how Outlook processes read receipts and meeting ..."

loading..   08-Sep-2025
loading..   9 min read
loading..

CWMP

RCE

A critical zero-day flaw in TP-Link routers allows remote code execution. CISA w...

The cybersecurity landscape for consumer and small business networking equipment is under intense scrutiny following the disclosure of a new, unpatched zero-day vulnerability in TP-Link routers. This discovery is critically contextualized by the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) simultaneously warning of active, in-the-wild exploitation of two older TP-Link flaws. This confluence of events underscores a persistent and systemic challenge: the fragility of widely deployed network infrastructure and the sophisticated economy of botnets that prey upon it. ### **New CWMP Zero-Day** #### **Core Vulnerability Mechanics** * **Nature of the Flaw:** A **classical stack-based buffer overflow** vulnerability located within the firmware's implementation of the CPE WAN Management Protocol (CWMP), also known as TR-069. * **Root Cause:** Improper bounds checking in critical C library functions (`strncpy`) when processing SOAP-based `SetParameterValues` messages. This allows data exceeding the allocated stack buffer size (~3072 bytes) to overwrite adjacent memory. * **Exploitation Pathway:** 1. **Server Redirection:** An attacker must first redirect the target router to a malicious CWMP server. This could be achieved through: * DNS spoofing or poisoning. * Exploitation of a separate vulnerability or misconfiguration. * Compromise of the legitimate Auto Configuration Server (ACS). 2. **Payload Delivery:** The malicious ACS server responds to the router's request with a specially crafted SOAP message containing an oversized value for a specific parameter. 3. **Execution Flow Hijack:** The overflow corrupts the call stack, potentially allowing an attacker to overwrite the return address and seize control of the program's execution flow, leading to Remote Code Execution (RCE). #### **Affected Components and Scope** * **Vulnerable Function:** The `sscanf` function within the `tddp` (TP-Link Device Debug Protocol) component or a related service parsing CWMP instructions. * **Confirmed Impacted Devices:** Archer AX10 (v1.6 and prior), Archer AX1500 (v1.2 and prior). * **Potentially Vulnerable Models:** Analysis of binary code suggests similar code structures in EX141, Archer VR400, and TD-W9970 models, implying a broader potential impact across TP-Link's product lines. #### **Patch Timeline** * **Disclosure:** Reported to TP-Link by researcher **Mehrun (@ByteRay0)** on May 11, 2024. * **Patch Discrepancy:** A patch has been developed and released for **European firmware versions**, highlighting regional fragmentation in update pipelines. A fix for **U.S. and global firmware versions remains in development**, leaving a significant portion of the user base exposed indefinitely. * **CVE Assignment:** As of this writing, the vulnerability has not been assigned a CVE identifier, complicating tracking and mitigation efforts for organizations. ### **CISA's KEV Catalog and Active Exploitation** #### **CVE-2023-50224 & CVE-2025-9377** CISA [added](https://www.cisa.gov/news-events/alerts/2025/09/03/cisa-adds-two-known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog) these two vulnerabilities to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, mandating remediation for federal agencies and signaling urgent broader importance. * **CVE-2023-50224 (Auth Bypass):** An authentication bypass flaw in the `httpd` service on certain routers. Exploitation allows an unauthenticated attacker to retrieve sensitive files, including the password file (`/tmp/dropbear/dropbearpwd`) for the router's SSH service. * **CVE-2025-9377 (Command Injection):** A command injection vulnerability in the `wl_band_switch` function. By injecting malicious commands into a POST request, attackers can execute arbitrary code on the device. * **Chained Impact:** These vulnerabilities are not exploited in isolation. Attackers first use **[CVE-2023-50224](https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2023-50224)** to steal legitimate admin credentials. They then leverage these credentials to authenticate and trigger **[CVE-2025-9377](https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9377)**, achieving unauthenticated remote code execution with high privileges. #### **Quad7 Botnet** * **Attribution:** This activity is attributed to a cybercriminal group tracked as **Storm-0940** (Microsoft) and their infrastructure, the **Quad7 botnet**. * **Operational Objectives:** The primary goal is not to disrupt the routers but to conscript them into a resilient proxy network. * **Attack Lifecycle:** 1. **Initial Compromise:** Exploit the chained vulnerabilities to gain root shell access. 2. **Persistence & Malware Deployment:** Install a custom binary that maintains a persistent connection to a Command and Control (C2) server. 3. **Proxyization:** The compromised router is transformed into a SOCKS5 proxy node, blending its traffic with legitimate user traffic. 4. **Weaponization:** This proxy network is then sold or rented to other threat actors to launch attacks, such as credential stuffing and password sprays against high-value targets like Microsoft 365, effectively obfuscating the attack source. ### **A Layered Defense Approach** #### **Immediate Compensating Controls** * **Disable CWMP/TR-069:** If this feature is not explicitly required by your Internet Service Provider (ISP) for management, disable it immediately in the router's administration interface. * **Credential Hygiene:** Change all default administrator passwords to complex, unique passphrases. This mitigates against easy post-exploitation lateral movement. * **Network Segmentation:** Place routers in a dedicated network segment, isolating them from critical internal LAN assets. This contains potential lateral movement following a compromise. * **Firmware Updates:** Apply the latest available firmware for your specific model and region immediately. For EoL devices, replacement is the only secure option. #### **Proactive Security Posturing** * **Supply Chain Vigilance:** Prefer vendors with a public and transparent commitment to "Secure by Design" principles, long-term support guarantees, and rapid response to disclosures. * **Continuous Monitoring:** Implement network monitoring to detect anomalies such as unexpected outbound connections, DNS queries to suspicious domains, or changes to router configuration. * **Policy Enforcement:** Enforce MFA on all cloud services (e.g., Office 365) to neutralize the threat of password spray attacks originating from such proxy botnets. ### **Broader Analysis** #### **Vendor Accountability and the IoT Security Crisis** This incident exemplifies the chronic security challenges in the consumer IoT space: * **Patch Fragmentation:** The delayed and region-locked patch rollout creates a fractured defense posture, leaving millions vulnerable. * **End-of-Life Problems:** Many exploited devices are technically EoL, yet their widespread deployment creates a massive, persistent attack surface that cannot be easily remediated. * **Systemic Risks:** Vulnerabilities in network edge devices provide a perfect launchpad for large-scale attacks against critical infrastructure and cloud services, representing a clear supply chain risk. #### **Evolving Botnet Economy** The Quad7 campaign illustrates a shift from disruptive DDoS-focused botnets to stealthy, profit-driven operations. These modern botnets prioritize persistence and anonymity, turning compromised devices into a commodity for other cybercriminals, thereby increasing the sophistication and scale of the overall threat landscape. The TP-Link vulnerabilities are not an isolated incident but a symptom of a larger systemic issue. It necessitates a paradigm shift from both vendors and consumers. Vendors must embrace radical transparency, invest in secure development lifecycles, and guarantee consistent support. Consumers and organizations must treat network infrastructure not as simple appliances but as critical, internet-facing endpoints, applying rigorous security hygiene and demanding higher standards from manufacturers. The security of the internet's edge depends on it.

loading..   05-Sep-2025
loading..   6 min read
loading..

Chess

Chesscom confirms data breach via third-party app affecting 4,500 users, raising...

In June 2025, Chess.com, the world’s largest online chess platform with more than 150 million registered members, disclosed a **data breach that impacted just over 4,500 users**. On the surface, the breach appears minimal—barely 0.003% of its user base. Yet the details reveal something far more important than raw numbers: the enduring fragility of third-party integrations in modern digital ecosystems. The breach occurred through a **third-party file transfer application**, a category of software that has repeatedly served as an entry point for attackers in incidents such as MOVEit, Accellion, and GoAnywhere. According to Chess.com, the intrusion window spanned from **June 5 through June 18**, with detection occurring on **June 19**. While the company acted quickly to contain the incident, investigate with the help of forensic experts, and notify federal law enforcement, the event underscores how external dependencies continue to expand the attack surface. ### What Was Exposed The compromised dataset consisted of **Personally Identifiable Information (PII)**, such as user names and identifiers. Importantly, there was no exposure of payment data or direct access to Chess.com’s core platform infrastructure. As of this writing, there is no evidence that the data has been circulated publicly or weaponized. Still, the availability of even limited PII can provide attackers with building blocks for **credential stuffing campaigns, phishing operations, and social engineering against affected individuals**. ### A Praiseworthy but Imperfect Response To Chess.com’s credit, the organization demonstrated maturity in its **incident response posture**. Detection occurred relatively quickly compared to industry averages, where intrusions often linger for months undetected. Users were informed transparently, regulators were notified where applicable, and remediation was tangible: affected accounts were offered **one to two years of identity theft protection and credit monitoring services**. This level of transparency and speed contrasts favorably with the often opaque or delayed disclosures that characterize breaches in other industries. From a crisis management perspective, Chess.com earns high marks. However, praise must be tempered with realism. Credit monitoring is **inherently reactive**, offering a safety net after the fact rather than addressing the structural vulnerabilities that allowed the breach to occur in the first place. ### Supply-Chain Fragility What makes this breach consequential is not the scale but the **pattern it reinforces**. Third-party service providers—file transfer applications in particular—remain a **systemic risk multiplier**. Organizations may enforce rigorous controls internally, but the moment sensitive data crosses into an external platform, it inherits that vendor’s security posture. CISOs and CSOs recognize this problem all too well: * **Vendor risk assessments are often point-in-time, not continuous.** * **Telemetry from external systems rarely integrates into enterprise SIEM or SOAR pipelines.** * **Data minimization is inconsistently applied**, allowing PII to sit unnecessarily in vendor systems. In Chess.com’s case, the reliance on a file transfer service that became a breach vector mirrors the exact weaknesses exploited in the MOVEit and Accellion campaigns. For attackers, supply-chain nodes remain high-yield targets because they aggregate data across multiple clients and often lack the hardened defenses of primary enterprise infrastructure. ### Strategic Implications While the breach is small in numerical terms, it still carries **regulatory obligations under GDPR, CCPA, and other privacy frameworks**. The exposure of PII, even at limited scale, triggers compliance scrutiny. With the acceleration of **AI-driven privacy regulation** worldwide, enterprises are expected to enforce not just internal safeguards but **continuous oversight of vendor ecosystems**. From a governance standpoint, this raises difficult questions: **where does liability begin and end when the compromise originates from a vendor environment?** Boards and executive security leaders will need to scrutinize contract language, indemnification clauses, and—more importantly—risk tolerance for third-party dependencies. ### Final Analysis Chess.com’s handling of this incident was, by most measures, **effective and transparent**. But it would be misleading to frame the response as flawless. The real takeaway is that **even well-managed platforms remain vulnerable when their security is chained to external vendors**.

loading..   04-Sep-2025
loading..   4 min read