Tag Archives: house

For Sale – NETGEAR RBK50 Orbi Whole Home Wi-Fi Mesh

Recently upgraded to Gigaclear router and whole house ethernet ports so up for sale is my Orbi home mesh kit.

All boxed and literally like new.
The RBK50 comes with Router and one Satellite.

Gives amazing coverage (up to 3000sq ft according to Netgear) and throughput and above all wireless throughout your house.

Price and currency: £200
Delivery: Delivery cost is included within my country
Payment method: BT or PPG
Location: Essex/London
Advertised elsewhere?: Not advertised elsewhere
Prefer goods collected?: I prefer the goods to be collected

______________________________________________________
This message is automatically inserted in all classifieds forum threads.
By replying to this thread you agree to abide by the trading rules detailed here.
Please be advised, all buyers and sellers should satisfy themselves that the other party is genuine by providing the following via private conversation to each other after negotiations are complete and prior to dispatching goods and making payment:

  • Landline telephone number. Make a call to check out the area code and number are correct, too
  • Name and address including postcode
  • Valid e-mail address

DO NOT proceed with a deal until you are completely satisfied with all details being correct. It’s in your best interest to check out these details yourself.

For Sale – NETGEAR RBK50 Orbi Whole Home Wi-Fi Mesh

Recently upgraded to Gigaclear router and whole house ethernet ports so up for sale is my Orbi home mesh kit.

All boxed and literally like new.
The RBK50 comes with Router and one Satellite.

Gives amazing coverage (up to 3000sq ft according to Netgear) and throughput and above all wireless throughout your house.

Price and currency: £200
Delivery: Delivery cost is included within my country
Payment method: BT or PPG
Location: Essex/London
Advertised elsewhere?: Not advertised elsewhere
Prefer goods collected?: I prefer the goods to be collected

______________________________________________________
This message is automatically inserted in all classifieds forum threads.
By replying to this thread you agree to abide by the trading rules detailed here.
Please be advised, all buyers and sellers should satisfy themselves that the other party is genuine by providing the following via private conversation to each other after negotiations are complete and prior to dispatching goods and making payment:

  • Landline telephone number. Make a call to check out the area code and number are correct, too
  • Name and address including postcode
  • Valid e-mail address

DO NOT proceed with a deal until you are completely satisfied with all details being correct. It’s in your best interest to check out these details yourself.

For Sale – BOTH STILL FOR SALE EVGA 980Ti + ASUS Strix 970

EVGA 980Ti – For sale due to upgrade – I have about 3 PC’s around the house and the 980ti has been in my little used front room PC, and when it does get used it is predominantly for Vive which has not been used that much.

I bought it as one of a pair from here just over 2 years ago – I’m sure you will find the thread somewhere and both were unused and therefor I could register the warranty myself which was done with EVGA and it expires 09/08/2018. I’m certain EVGA warranties are transferable but in any event I will assist in any claims if needed.

I also purchased a back plate for it which is included in the sale

EVGA 980Ti Superclocked ACX 2.0+ £280 plus delivery

Asus Strix 970 – I bought this from here nearly new but never was sent the invoice and I am certain the 3 year warranty is out of date now. This has had a charmed life as it was in the PC for my Cinema Room but never hardly got used. Only selling due to wanting to justify and upgrade PC’s

Asus 970 Strix OC Edition £160 plus delivery

Photos to follow

Collection preferred from CM22 or I regularly travel into North London and can meet to exchange. If posted It will need to be by Special Delivery at buyers cost.

Price and currency: £280 + £160
Delivery: Delivery cost is not included
Payment method: BT
Location: Bishops Stortford
Advertised elsewhere?: Not advertised elsewhere
Prefer goods collected?: I prefer the goods to be collected

______________________________________________________
This message is automatically inserted in all classifieds forum threads.
By replying to this thread you agree to abide by the trading rules detailed here.
Please be advised, all buyers and sellers should satisfy themselves that the other party is genuine by providing the following via private conversation to each other after negotiations are complete and prior to dispatching goods and making payment:

  • Landline telephone number. Make a call to check out the area code and number are correct, too
  • Name and address including postcode
  • Valid e-mail address

DO NOT proceed with a deal until you are completely satisfied with all details being correct. It’s in your best interest to check out these details yourself.

For Sale – NETGEAR RBK50 Orbi Whole Home Wi-Fi Mesh

Recently upgraded to Gigaclear router and whole house ethernet ports so up for sale is my Orbi home mesh kit.

All boxed and literally like new.
The RBK50 comes with Router and one Satellite.

Gives amazing coverage (up to 3000sq ft according to Netgear) and throughput and above all wireless throughout your house.

Price and currency: £200
Delivery: Delivery cost is included within my country
Payment method: BT or PPG
Location: Essex/London
Advertised elsewhere?: Not advertised elsewhere
Prefer goods collected?: I prefer the goods to be collected

______________________________________________________
This message is automatically inserted in all classifieds forum threads.
By replying to this thread you agree to abide by the trading rules detailed here.
Please be advised, all buyers and sellers should satisfy themselves that the other party is genuine by providing the following via private conversation to each other after negotiations are complete and prior to dispatching goods and making payment:

  • Landline telephone number. Make a call to check out the area code and number are correct, too
  • Name and address including postcode
  • Valid e-mail address

DO NOT proceed with a deal until you are completely satisfied with all details being correct. It’s in your best interest to check out these details yourself.

For Sale – BOTH STILL FOR SALE EVGA 980Ti + ASUS Strix 970

EVGA 980Ti – For sale due to upgrade – I have about 3 PC’s around the house and the 980ti has been in my little used front room PC, and when it does get used it is predominantly for Vive which has not been used that much.

I bought it as one of a pair from here just over 2 years ago – I’m sure you will find the thread somewhere and both were unused and therefor I could register the warranty myself which was done with EVGA and it expires 09/08/2018. I’m certain EVGA warranties are transferable but in any event I will assist in any claims if needed.

I also purchased a back plate for it which is included in the sale

EVGA 980Ti Superclocked ACX 2.0+ £280 plus delivery

Asus Strix 970 – I bought this from here nearly new but never was sent the invoice and I am certain the 3 year warranty is out of date now. This has had a charmed life as it was in the PC for my Cinema Room but never hardly got used. Only selling due to wanting to justify and upgrade PC’s

Asus 970 Strix OC Edition £160 plus delivery

Photos to follow

Collection preferred from CM22 or I regularly travel into North London and can meet to exchange. If posted It will need to be by Special Delivery at buyers cost.

Price and currency: £280 + £160
Delivery: Delivery cost is not included
Payment method: BT
Location: Bishops Stortford
Advertised elsewhere?: Not advertised elsewhere
Prefer goods collected?: I prefer the goods to be collected

______________________________________________________
This message is automatically inserted in all classifieds forum threads.
By replying to this thread you agree to abide by the trading rules detailed here.
Please be advised, all buyers and sellers should satisfy themselves that the other party is genuine by providing the following via private conversation to each other after negotiations are complete and prior to dispatching goods and making payment:

  • Landline telephone number. Make a call to check out the area code and number are correct, too
  • Name and address including postcode
  • Valid e-mail address

DO NOT proceed with a deal until you are completely satisfied with all details being correct. It’s in your best interest to check out these details yourself.

White House WannaCry attribution leaves unanswered questions

Althoucepted the White House assertion that North Korea was behind the WannaCry attacks, some took issue with the government’s stance.gh experts ac

In the original announcement of the WannaCry attribution on Monday and in the press conference on Tuesday, Tom Bossert, homeland security adviser to the White House, reiterated the need to hold those responsible for the attacks accountable.

“As we make the internet safer, we will continue to hold accountable those who harm or threaten us, whether they act alone or on behalf of criminal organizations or hostile nations,” Bossert wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. “Malicious hackers belong in prison, and totalitarian governments should pay a price for their actions. The rest of us must redouble our efforts to improve our collective defenses. The tool kits of totalitarian regimes are too threatening to ignore.”

However, experts noted a large omission in this accountability: the fact that the WannaCry ransomware was built on cyberweapons developed by and subsequently stolen from the National Security Agency (NSA).

Jake Williams, a former member of the Tailored Access Operations team for the NSA and founder of consulting firm Rendition InfoSec LLC in Augusta, Ga., noted on Twitter than Bossert never used the words “NSA” or “leak” in the WannaCry attribution op-ed.

“If a Somali terrorist blew up a bomb in NYC using explosives supplied by the Syrian government, I don’t think we’d ever talk about the attack without talking about Syria. Whether you like it or not, the U.S. supplied the “explosives” for WannaCry. We need to own this,” Williams wrote on Twitter.

“And it’s not just WannaCry. AES-NI, NotPetya, and multiple other malware samples have used EternalBlue. But don’t stop at EternalBlue. We’ve had customers hit with other leaked exploits. I don’t think we’ll ever account for the full damage caused by these leaks,” Williams wrote. “Public opinion around nuclear weapons would change if we admitted we couldn’t secure them and we’d be attacked by our own stolen weapons. Let’s have adult discussions about this happening in the cyber domain and cut out the White House propaganda.”

During the press conference on Tuesday, Bossert was directly asked about the NSA’s role in developing EternalBlue and the leak of the NSA cyberweapons by the Shadow Brokers and Bossert avoided the question, instead saying that the U.S. has “led the most transparent vulnerabilities equities process in the world.”

Erasing Kaspersky

In addition to glossing over the NSA’s  connection to WannaCry, Bossert and the White House also omitted Kaspersky Lab’s contribution to the WannaCry attribution case. Although Bossert gave credit to Microsoft and Facebook for fighting WannaCry attacks and noted that the U.K., New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Canada and Japan all agreed that North Korea was behind the attacks, Bossert didn’t give credit to Kaspersky.

Kaspersky Lab’s investigation team was the first to draw a connection between North Korea’s Lazarus hacking group in June 2017, just one month after the initial WannaCry attacks.

However, the only mention of Kaspersky in Bossert’s comments was a reminder that the U.S. government counts Kaspersky as untrustworthy due to possible — but unverified — connections with the Russian government, and has moved to ban Kaspersky products from government systems.

Given the current political climate, it seems unlikely that the administration will publicly acknowledge Kaspersky’s work in cyber threat intelligence and attribution.
Jake Williamsfounder of consulting firm Rendition InfoSec LLC

Williams was not surprised by this omission.

“Given the current political climate, it seems unlikely that the administration will publicly acknowledge Kaspersky’s work in cyber threat intelligence and attribution,” Williams told SearchSecurity. “However, there is little doubt they are making use of those same reports behind closed doors. Kaspersky continues to be an important source of cyber threat Intelligence data, including reporting on attackers linked to the Russian government.”

Cooperation between government and private sector    

As part of the push for accountability, Bossert and the White House said there needed to be closer relations between the public and private sectors following the WannaCry attribution. Bossert wrote that stopping malicious behavior “requires governments and businesses to cooperate to mitigate cyber risk and increase the cost to hackers. The U.S. must lead this effort, rallying allies and responsible tech companies throughout the free world to increase the security and resilience of the internet.”

Scott Petry, co-founder and CEO of Authentic8, said pushing for this kind of cooperation is reasonable and not all that new.

“The Department of Homeland Security has pushed a number of initiatives — for instance their Enhanced Cybersecurity Services where sensitive threat intel is distributed to authorized recipients. They’ve pushed commercial organizations to provide more intel to DHS for dissemination,” Petry told SearchSecurity. “These initiatives have run into some headwinds though, since organizations have been unable or unwilling to share meaningful attack data. There are compliance and data privacy issues as well as the conditioned response of not disclosing breaches in a timely fashion.”

Matt Suiche, founder of managed threat detection company Comae Technologies, also noted that the process for such cooperation is not clear.

“Collaboration between entities is very important we saw it with the recent epidemies — WannaCry, NotPetya, etc. — through the infosec community on Twitter. Very useful and detailed descriptions of how the malwares were working, and even responses from individuals (kill switches) while the big security companies were too slow to provide intelligent feedback,” Suiche told SearchSecurity. “But the question is: Are they just saying it for PR or do they have a pre-set of trusted partners they will only communicate with? If tomorrow a security start-up wants to collaborate and help DHS, is there an official channel for this?”

Politecnico di Milano preserves ancient temple with a simple IoT solution – Internet of Things

Forty-five feet beneath the Teatro dell’Opera (National Opera House) in Rome — the site where the Circus Maximus stood during the days of the Roman Empire — lies the Mitreo, a temple of the god Mithras. Little is known about Mithras and his followers; no texts have survived, and archaeologists depend on the artifacts found in well-preserved temples like this one to understand how Mithraism and other pagan religions fared in the early years of the Christian era. Today, researchers from Politecnico di Milano, one of Italy’s most important scientific-technical universities, are using a modern — and simple — Internet of Things (IoT) solution to help preserve and study this ancient history.

Like many fragile archaeological sites, the Mitreo is accessible only through special tours or appointments, making it difficult to study its environmental conditions continually. Archaeologists needed to determine whether humidity, temperature and other environmental factors were damaging the temple’s ancient friezes and sculptures without disrupting the site through frequent visits. By combining smart sensor technology with Azure IoT data analytics, archaeologists can remotely track environmental conditions and prevent further damage or deterioration to the site.

Politecnico di Milano had developed smart sensors to place throughout the Mitreo, and needed an end-to-end technology solution that could relay and process sensor data in the cloud. Researchers chose Microsoft Azure because it was simple enough for a small team of nonengineers to manage daily.

“We tried several solutions and found that many cloud-based IoT platforms are overly complicated for what they do,” says Luca Mottola, associate professor and director of the Networked Embedded Software Lab at Politecnico di Milano, and one of the senior advisors to the project team. “Among the possible options, Azure was the best choice to get this done.”

Now the team can identify ongoing environmental problems, such as high humidity, or fluctuations in temperature or ground movement, to determine what must be done to protect the site. Because the solution is simple to use and can easily scale to larger sites, the team is making plans to implement similar projects at sites in Milan and Turin.

“Once this technology is a bit more simplified, the archeologists won’t need us anymore,” says Mottola. “They will do it by themselves.”

For more information on how Politecnico di Milano is using the power of IoT to protect ancient Roman ruins, read the Politecnico di Milano customer story or the technical case study.

Tags: archaeology, Azure IoT Hub, Italy, Politecnico di Milano, Rome

Federal vulnerability review under new VEP still has questions

Experts said the new Vulnerabilities Equities Process Charter unveiled by the White House should be a good step, but argued the value of VEP overall.

Daniel Castro, vice president for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), an independent research institute, based in Washington, D.C., said the government’s overall cybersecurity policy is still flawed, but the new VEP Charter “is exactly the right policy.”

“The administration has clearly heard the requests for transparency and oversight from many stakeholders, and it has addressed those concerns head on. Now that we have a fully documented process and commitments to publish annual metrics, businesses, security experts, academics, and government officials can start to have a productive debate about how to assess and improve the disclosure process,” Castro said in a statement released by ITIF. “It remains to be seen how receptive the administration will be to reassessing when to share information on vulnerabilities, but its decision today was the right move to build up goodwill among many stakeholders.”

Balancing vulnerability disclosure

However, the VEP overall is still divisive because experts cannot agree on whether to prioritize offensive cyber capabilities or defensive when it comes to federal vulnerability review and disclosure.

In the VEP Charter announcement, Rob Joyce, special assistant to the president and cybersecurity coordinator for the National Security Council, said that “conducting this risk/benefit analysis is a vital responsibility of the federal government.”

“There are advocates on both sides of the vulnerability equity issue who make impassioned arguments. Some argue that every vulnerability should be immediately disclosed to the vendor and patched,” Joyce wrote in the announcement. “In my view, this is tantamount to unilateral disarmament. Our adversaries, both criminal and nation state, are unencumbered by concerns about transparency and responsible disclosure and will certainly not end their own programs to discover and exploit vulnerabilities.”

Katie Moussouris, CEO of Luta Security, Inc., said Joyce’s statement “is a false dichotomy between 100% disclosure, versus the current process that puts 0-day vulnerabilities at the heart of the matter.”

“My assertion has always been to err on the side of disclosure to the vendor, and seek a mission-focused alternative to using zero-day vulnerabilities in broadly-deployed software,” Moussouris told SearchSecurity. “In some cases, not all, the objective of the mission could be completed via other means, such as exploiting misconfigurations, or well-crafted phishing attacks, or even via zero-day exploits in localized, country-specific software instead. Exploitation of vulnerabilities for which a patch exists but hasn’t been applied on the target system yet is one such alternative.”

J.J. Guy, CTO of JASK, a cybersecurity company based in San Francisco, and former officer in the U.S. Air Force, said it is a flawed argument to claim that vulnerability review and disclosure by the government can keep enterprises safe because “it assumes vulnerabilities are finite and if we can simply fix all the vulnerabilities we will be secure.”  

“If the federal government is forced to release the details of newly discovered vulnerabilities, they will stop looking for them. To do otherwise is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The other intelligence agencies in the world will not be similarly constrained, they will continue their research and discover new vulnerabilities. They will use those against U.S. interests, including those of U.S. companies, to steal intellectual property and accelerate research and development of their own companies,” Guy told SearchSecurity. “For every vulnerability the federal government discovers, there are a dozen others still waiting to be discovered – and dozens more that will be introduced in new versions of software over the following year. To attempt to control that through the VEP is like using an umbrella in a hurricane.”

Experts debate the details of the VEP Charter

Although several experts said the new VEP Charter was a step in the right direction for federal vulnerability review, the document was not perfect.

Willis McDonald, senior threat manager at Core Security, a cybersecurity company headquartered in Roswell, Ga., noted an odd discord in the White House announcement which claimed to represent the interests of commercial equities and international partnership equities, but the VEP council “does not include any representation from either commercial or international entities.”

“For national security purposes this is an obvious exclusion but closes the door on external oversight of decisions deemed in the interest of national security. The VEP Charter limits the scope of vulnerabilities addressed by the council to certain classes which allows the reporting entity to report as they see fit vulnerabilities outside of the VEP scope,” McDonald told SearchSecurity. “Vulnerabilities discovered and shared by international partners are not addressed by the VEP, which would allow a participating entity to report the vulnerability as they see fit. The VEP merely expands the agency participants in procedures and councils already in place for making decisions on reporting vulnerabilities.”

Legislation like PATCH and the VEP Charter are in place to calm the public and paint a facade of transparency rather than actually cause change.
Willis McDonaldsenior threat manager at Core Security

Amie Stepanovich, U.S. policy manager at Access Now, a non-profit human rights and public policy group based in New York, said the new VEP Charter “maintains all of the loopholes of the process as it was previously formulated, and in fact creates new ones as well because of the Charter’s own recognition of the importance of cybersecurity, which is specifically undermined by unpatched vulnerabilities.”

“The VEP appears to apply to any vulnerability that is newly discovered and not publicly known, though third parties can expressly contract or agree that a vulnerability will not go through the process,” Stepanovich told SearchSecurity. “There are also other exceptions which remain classified. Additionally, practically it will require an agency determination that a vulnerability meets that standard and is unclear if they are required to consider that determination with a vulnerability that they discover.”

Early reactions to the VEP Charter said one potential loophole might be with non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) being able to keep a bug out of the federal vulnerability review process, but Moussouris said this reading might not be accurate.

“The NDA mention is likely in reference to the fact that exploit sellers may have terms of service that require their buyers not to disclose the vulnerability, such as providing the sample to the affected vendor. It’s not a loophole as characterized, but rather a deliberate commercial term by the exploit vendor to preserve their IP,” Moussouris said. “A bug is the weakness that can be exploited. An exploit in this context is software written to take advantage of that weakness, and it takes craftmanship to engineer an exploit that works reliably against a given target. That exploit is something the exploit vendor might not want to get into the hands of the software vendor.”

Heather West, senior policy manager and Americas principal at Mozilla, agreed that the exceptions process of the VEP needed work and said there needed to be more detail on how disclosures work.

“A good disclosure makes the difference. The Charter requires the board to agree on guidelines about how to disclose — and we hope that they lean on the established expertise at DHS to put those together. No need to reinvent the wheel,” West wrote in a blog post. “Joyce talked about a six month window for retaining a vulnerability, and a quicker reconsideration for a particularly sensitive vulnerability (or one that there isn’t broad agreement about retaining). This reconsideration is critical: just because something is useful today doesn’t make it useful in six months — and indeed, the longer that it is kept, the more likely that someone else has discovered it too.”

VEP and federal vulnerability review transparency

McDonald said the overall push for transparency with the new VEP Charter could “ultimately be just as effective as policies in place prior.”

“Legislation like [the proposed PATCH Act] and the VEP Charter are in place to calm the public and paint a facade of transparency rather than actually cause change,” McDonald said. “Vulnerabilities such as those used in WannaCry would never have been released through VEP due to their usefulness in providing access to remote systems for collection purposes.”

West said the annual reports should lead to better oversight of the federal vulnerability review process.

“This will significantly help us understand how the process works — including whether or not the government is stockpiling vulnerabilities,” West wrote. “While Congress is not involved in the individual decisions that are made, they have a critical role in the oversight of the process itself.”

Stepanovich agreed “much more remains to be done” with the transparency provisions of the VEP Charter.

“Annual reports should guarantee that they will be made publicly available,” Stepanovich said. “Additionally, the Charter should specify more about what is included in the report, including not only the number of withheld vulnerabilities, but their severity and potential impact, as well as records of the frequency each agency votes to disclose or retain a vulnerability.”

New VEP Charter promises vulnerability transparency

The White House wants more transparency in how federal agencies determine whether or not to disclose software vulnerabilities, but there are early questions regarding how it might work.

The Vulnerabilities Equities Process (VEP) was designed to organize how federal agencies would review vulnerabilities and decide if a flaw should be kept secret for use in intelligence or law enforcement operations or disclosed to vendors. The new VEP Charter announced by Rob Joyce, special assistant to the President and cybersecurity coordinator for the National Security Council, aims to ensure the government conducts “the VEP in a manner that can withstand a high degree of scrutiny and oversight from the citizens it serves.”

“I believe that conducting this risk/benefit analysis is a vital responsibility of the Federal Government,” Joyce wrote in a public statement. “Although I don’t believe withholding all vulnerabilities for operations is a responsible position, we see many nations choose it. I also know of no nation that has chosen to disclose every vulnerability it discovers.”

Joyce laid out the “key tenets” of the new VEP Charter, including increased transparency and an annual report, improved standardization of the process regarding the interests of various stakeholders and increased accountability.

“We make it clear that departments and agencies with protective missions participate in VEP discussions, as well as other departments and agencies that have broader equities, like the Department of State and the Department of Commerce. We also clarify what categories of vulnerabilities are submitted to the process and ensure that any decision not to disclose a vulnerability will be reevaluated regularly,” Joyce wrote. “There are still important reasons to keep many of the specific vulnerabilities evaluated in the process classified, but we will release an annual report that provides metrics about the process to further inform the public about the VEP and its outcomes.”

Questions about the VEP Charter

The VEP has previously been criticized by experts for being optional rather than being codified into law, but the VEP Charter does not include language making the process a requirement nor does it acknowledge the PATCH Act, a bill proposed in Congress which would enforce a framework for using the VEP.

Heather West, senior policy manager and Americas principal at Mozilla, noted in a blog post that “many of the goals of the PATCH Act [are] covered in this process release, [but] our overarching goal in codifying the VEP in law to ensure compliance and permanence cannot be met by unilateral executive action.”

Early readings of the VEP Charter have revealed what some consider a conflict of interest, in that the NSA is designated as the VEP Executive Secretariat with the responsibility to “facilitate information flow, discussions, determinations, documentation, and recordkeeping for the process.”

However, the VEP Charter also states that any flaw found in NSA-certified equipment or systems should be “reported to NSA as soon as practical. NSA will assume responsibility for this vulnerability and submit it formally through the VEP Executive Secretariat.”

Additionally some have taken issue with the following clause in the VEP Charter: “The [U.S. government’s] decision to disclose or restrict vulnerability information could be subject to restrictions by foreign or private sector partners of the USG, such as Non-Disclosure Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding, or other agreements that constrain USG options for disclosing vulnerability information.”

Edward Snowden said on Twitter that this could be considered an “enormous loophole permitting digital arms brokers to exempt critical flaws in U.S. infrastructure from disclosure” by using an NDA.

For Sale – Pok3r Mechanical Keyboard (MX Greens)

Moving house and so having a clear-out of some odd bits and bobs.

I don’t suspect this will get much attention but if anyone is interested in a portable form factor mechanical keyboard with tactile switches, this Pok3r is amazing. Comes fully boxed, albeit without a mini-USB cable (which you will need to connect the keyboard to your computer).

Pictures:
https://i.imgur.com/PIBIaU8.jpg

Price and currency: 95
Delivery: Delivery cost is included within my country
Payment method: Bank Transfer / PPG
Location: London
Advertised elsewhere?: Advertised elsewhere
Prefer goods collected?: I prefer the goods to be collected

______________________________________________________
This message is automatically inserted in all classifieds forum threads.
By replying to this thread you agree to abide by the trading rules detailed here.
Please be advised, all buyers and sellers should satisfy themselves that the other party is genuine by providing the following via private conversation to each other after negotiations are complete and prior to dispatching goods and making payment:

  • Landline telephone number. Make a call to check out the area code and number are correct, too
  • Name and address including postcode
  • Valid e-mail address

DO NOT proceed with a deal until you are completely satisfied with all details being correct. It’s in your best interest to check out these details yourself.