My sister just bought a brand new Ford - the radio code is "in her possession" in that it's included with the car's manual. They do suggest you don't keep it in the car with the rest of the car's documentation, and that you don't lose it.
Code-locked radios (for anti theft) have been common for years, mainly because the factory radios don;t usually have removable facias.
You misunderstand me - I'm not talking about the password prompt, I'm talking about the "unlock" feature that is in place of UAC prompts in Windows. So, nothing can be changed unless you click the padlock and then authenticate before you do anything (rather than saying "do this" and then have to respond to a UAC, it's just the other way around). You can't really spoof it, and I think it's a good way to implement it, since you have to decide ahead of time that you are going to change something system related. The Windows UAC method is obviously ok too - anything to increase security is good. I was addressing the claims that OS X simply didn't have anything like this, when it clearly does.
And with the jailbreak you're now talking about iOS - are there any in-the-wild exploits on OS X? No, I didn't think so. Plenty of holes - but that's to be expected; they get found, and then patched. It's how security is improved.
No, what I was talking about, far from being "delusional" was addressing the false statement that the Mac Defender trojan is a "drive by install" as claimed. It is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes, hence why I said it was still bad - if the thing trashes your home folder then you can hopefully restore from Time Machine or other backup, which you'd likely have to do anyway in the event of nuke and paving your drive if you had something that had local access *and* root.
It does suggest that perhaps Time Machine is a weakness - a local user can write to their Time Machine folder, and thus can delete files on it (or the whole thing). Perhaps the process of writing to that folder should be restricted to root, and the local user only has read access, thus in the event of a piece of malware (that doesn't have root) hosing your home folder, it can't touch your backups.
You're right that I ultimately don;t care about anything outside my home folder - I can just reinstall to get all that back.
Because OS X also has those things - files downloaded from the internet have the url embedded and you are warned if you open them (before they execute) and you have to ok that.
It also has prompts for admin functions, UAC style (except it's done pro-actively - you have to unlock to change, rather than clicking something and having the system pop up a dialog box), as well as the usual admin requirements to install certain things.
I believe it does have a leg up, but only in the sense that Unix in general has a leg up because the starting point was so different. Unix, Linux and the like have always had a leg up in that respect just by their nature. It's not trolling, it's simply fact. Windows has got much better in recent years - Win 7 is actually really good, and the instances of viruses is going down.
And these "drive bys" do not just work - if you believe the stories then you're buying the FUD. For any of this malware you work you have to bypass the "this is an application downloaded from the internet - run it? yes/no" and then click again in the installer (and with the first version, give admin password), and then install it. There's no "drive by infection". Have you ever actually used a Mac or are you just going on what you've read in a poorly written article?
This doesn't diminish security issues - clearly trojans are unpleasant and annoying, but this whole "menacing" malware that's "plaguing" OS X is really just sensationalism at this point.
We're talking viruses and malware here, not the sort of security compromises that happen at pwn2own (although both are clearly important).
And I challenge "shown to be least secure" when all the headlines are about how it's "first to fall" because either people want to win the Mac (possibly, possibly not) or simply because the schedule puts it up for attack first (the Linux box isn;t even available until the second day).
There's no "koolaid drinking" here, just examination of the current state of affairs. The ten year track record of OS X and Unix in general is pretty good. Windows' track record is getting better. No OS is immune.
Bu you just keep Apple bashing, don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good rant.
Yes, and I'm hoping we don't much beyond that level due to a different culture regarding malware and a different initial start base that is better set up to deal with security problems. Sort of the way that Win 7 has finally started to get it right - OS X is starting about there regarding account setup/access controls/limitation on root user/no need to run as admin etc etc.
You'll note my use of quotes, and the tone of the entire post being one of sarcasm.
I do think my Apple gadgets are cool, but not because I paid more for them. I also think many of the other computer gadgets I own are cool, all for different reasons. I even throw a little cool factor at "old faithful" running Win 95 that is hooked up to the very old FTIR machine for those days when all the Bruker ones go on the blink.
I'm not sure how you managed to infer that I found my gadgets (that I didn't even directly refer to - I was speaking in the first person from the OP's PoV about unnamed third party antagonists) that I found them cool purely because I spent more on them.
Ah, so it's ok to be fast and loose with the definitions and so on as long as it makes Apple look bad (vulnerability to viruses and worms is a considerably different kettle of fish to being vulnerable to trojans), but when it comes to Android malware, there's a sudden flood of "it's not that bad" and "it's a trojan, it's not *infecting* apps on the Android Market, how can it do that?!".
Just checking.
I'll concede the point if you'll go and post the same "it's ok to muddy it up" response to all those Android folks doing damage control over there.
Specificity is important, especially where security is concerned.
Indeed, I should have said what I was searching for - the ORLY owl. A friend and I have been trading more and more outlandish ones back and forth as we both complete various menial day-to-day chores, just to brighten the mood.
I suspect that the malware authors went for things that people search for a lot - so that would be porn, memes, and popular culture.
The article that is practically on the same page as this one mentions the daily updates to the definitions, and the daily checking by the new tool. Given that it's June 1st at the moment, "next month" is just baseless bashing.
People have been saying this for the entire life of OS X, and I say "put up or shut up" - the claims are that it's just not worth it, or that no one cares, but that it's really a ripe, low-hanging fruit that is so vulnerable... yet no one has bothered, in 10 years , to even *try*? Not even to "stick Mac users' noses in it" (with the sort of "HAHAHA!" crowing that we've seen from slashdot users over this simple trojan).
You're telling me that *no one* in over 10 years has decided to prove this supposed "common wisdom" that OS X is virus free solely due to install base? I simply don;t buy it. The security model it uses, the security updates it receives, and the software base that it is based on would suggest otherwise.
As far as I know there has been a single proof of concept virus that has never been seen in the wild and has a 24 hour self termination feature, and that the bug it exploits is patched.
Now, I'm not going to claim any OS is immune, but I would say OS X's track record is pretty damn good.
Translation: I'm a friendless neckbeard living in my mom's basement on Mountain Dew and Cheetos and am jealous of all those "hipster" kids with their friends and "cool" gadgets. Girls don't seem to appreciate I compiled my own kernel!
See, I can generalise too!
(seriously, I cannot see how you got to where you were from the OP's question, which had no grandstanding or platform flaming or anything, just a query about an issue that is apparently "widespread" and "menacing" (according to the article) on OS X.
This style of "FTFY" post is just tiresome and belongs back in high school kid.
What viruses, as a matter of interest? Or do you mean trojans, which are not the same thing at all - which are an issue for any OS, regardless of security since it's a social engineering issue (less so for Linux I would imagine, since the user base tends to be skewed towards people who can spot a trojan from a mile off).
It's hardly just "security through obscurity" - you make it sound like OS X was designed like a car with the doors and windows unlocked, when it clearly wasn't. It's not perfect, but it is pretty good, and it does receive regular security updates in anticipation of attacks against it, it's just not until now that we've seen anything widespread, and even then it's been pretty limited - an ineffective trojan that is easy to remove (takes about 3 minutes total, or less) that requires you give it your express permission to install (and your admin password). The new one is modified to be local user only, so doesn't even have root.
It's not great, clearly, since any malware targeting your platform is a pain in the ass, but you're painting it like OS X has been sitting here doing nothing for the 10 years it's been around and only escaped by standing behind Windows - the legions of security updates and software policy on the OS itself would beg to differ.
Not that even the very best and most secure OS could stop this malware (having never "seen" it before), since it's entirely a social engineering security bypass. The conman tricked his way past your security guards and is stealing your TV.
I have seen it attempt to get me to download it - I got hit by a google image search result where it showed me a "Finder" in Safari, with an almost convincing progress bar etc while it "scanned for viruses".
It's a new piece of malware, as far as definitions go. It will be blocked tomorrow when the tool checks for new definitions.
It still requires that you dismiss the "this file appears to be a file downloaded from the internet from [address], are you sure you want to run it?" dialog box. Plus, with no admin password it's local user only (which is still bad, just not root capable).
Alas, the arms race begins. At least it's only trojans.
They use supercaps as part of the system - there are big high voltage warnings that you need to put on the car when the system is charged, since it can seriously lash out and bite you if the car is just off-track and you're the first to touch it. There's a video on youtube somewhere of one of the pit crew being thrown back when he took a hit from the KERS system without wearing his insulating gloves.
Why? They make a product, and sell that product. Just like Nike makes products, and sells them. I don't think you understand the difference between a homogenous product chain and antitrust/anticompetitive practices, which I assume you're driving at with this fact-free statement.
It's not illegal to choose what you sell in your store (apart from for discriminatory reasons), and not illegal to have a monopoly. Apple is no different to any other single brand manufacturer with a retail and online presence - do you think Nike should be sued for not selling Addidas products in their stores? Do you think they should be forced to carry a competitor's product? Extending it, do you think that any retailer should be forced to sell something against their will?
This is my thinking too. The huge build up and reveal to the "new" Daleks, and the subsequent behind the scenes stuff with them really said "we think these are going to be awesome!" However, the fan reaction to the new design has put them off and they have had to do an emergency rethink - probably by bringing back the old ones.
If only the London 2012 committee had done the same thing with the 2012 logo, after realising that after £500,000 or something crazy to design it that *everyone* universally hates it, and the most flattering thing anyone can say is that it looks like Lisa Simpson giving a blow job. The "knocked up in 5 minutes" suggestions posted to the BBC site were almost all better than the official train wreck - although perhaps not the Goatse one that managed to slip through and get posted on the BBC's site.
You seem to fail to appreciate that both the Hindenburg disaster and a plane crash today resulted in loss of life and property. The Fukushima disaster is a tremendous problem for Japan.
Point out to me exactly where I indicated anything of the sort?
You are attempting to assign meaning to things out of context to support your faulty argument, not me. You keep going on about the "assurances that this couldn;t happen" by politicians [and to some extent, the engineers who design the plants] and then point to a nuclear accident as "proof" they were lying to you, and thus that all nuclear power is unsafe and no one who is pro-nuclear should be trusted.
I have already explained that the "impossible" claim is very specific to the conditions of the accident that occurred at Chernobyl, and that it really cannot happen in a western plant - they are simply not designed the same way. This is where the Hndenburg disaster comes in. It crashed because the skin of the Zeppelin caught fire and burned away, consuming the whole craft because they had doped the canvas skin with a compound very similar to rocket fuel that burns extremely readily. Excellent for deflecting the sun's rays and maintaining the temperature and thus the buoyancy of the airship, but not so good when it burns. Now, if an aviation expert where to tell you that the accident that occurred was not possible with a modern airliner, you would look very silly if you tried to twist it around and claim that he was talking about *any* accident, or the fact that people die in both sorts of crashes. No one is debating that. I am pointing out that your logic is flawed.
Now, I don't want to get into a huge debate about the relative environmental impact of coal vs nuclear energy - coal really doesn't come out winning, but hey, at least it doesn't have that "scary" radiation word attached to it.
Nuclear energy is clean and safe - don't take my word for it, just look at the safety record over the course of its use as a commercial energy source. Even with the extremely unusual and impossible in non-RBMK reactors accident, it is still much safer, cleaner, less environmentally damaging and has killed an order of magnitude fewer people than coal.
The future is obvious - a base load of nuclear stations (instead of coal and gas), backed by renewable sources for peak power (wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc). We are selling ourselves down the river though, because the big advantage to coal is that it is *cheap* - that is the reason that nuclear power is not our current base load provider and only accounts for about 18% of the load in the UK, less in other places. At least the French have it right, but economies of scale are hurting them.
I'm not sure what's more amusing - the non-sequitur about claims of safety regarding air travel or that you think Fukushima is *anything like* Chernobyl at all.
It's not even in the same ballpark in damage, type of accident, consequences, style of reactor... in fact, just about the only thing they have in common is that both places were nuclear power plants.
If you can't even acknowledge that the similarities between the two accidents are about as similar as the Hindenburg disaster and the crash of a modern airliner, then I'm not even sure it's worth debating it with you (which I'm more than happy to do).
Chernobyl really cannot happen in "the west" purely because it's literally impossible (due to the reactor designs in question), not because nuclear power stations are immune to accidents.
I'm not sure that you are understanding my position - it is that OSS is *not* a poisoned chalice, and I was addressing what I saw as the OP's wider rant that profiting from OSS code you didn't personally write was immoral, which I don't necessarily think is true (licences permitting).
Slashdot Mirror
My sister just bought a brand new Ford - the radio code is "in her possession" in that it's included with the car's manual. They do suggest you don't keep it in the car with the rest of the car's documentation, and that you don't lose it.
Code-locked radios (for anti theft) have been common for years, mainly because the factory radios don;t usually have removable facias.
You misunderstand me - I'm not talking about the password prompt, I'm talking about the "unlock" feature that is in place of UAC prompts in Windows. So, nothing can be changed unless you click the padlock and then authenticate before you do anything (rather than saying "do this" and then have to respond to a UAC, it's just the other way around). You can't really spoof it, and I think it's a good way to implement it, since you have to decide ahead of time that you are going to change something system related. The Windows UAC method is obviously ok too - anything to increase security is good. I was addressing the claims that OS X simply didn't have anything like this, when it clearly does.
And with the jailbreak you're now talking about iOS - are there any in-the-wild exploits on OS X? No, I didn't think so. Plenty of holes - but that's to be expected; they get found, and then patched. It's how security is improved.
No, what I was talking about, far from being "delusional" was addressing the false statement that the Mac Defender trojan is a "drive by install" as claimed. It is not. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Yes, hence why I said it was still bad - if the thing trashes your home folder then you can hopefully restore from Time Machine or other backup, which you'd likely have to do anyway in the event of nuke and paving your drive if you had something that had local access *and* root.
It does suggest that perhaps Time Machine is a weakness - a local user can write to their Time Machine folder, and thus can delete files on it (or the whole thing). Perhaps the process of writing to that folder should be restricted to root, and the local user only has read access, thus in the event of a piece of malware (that doesn't have root) hosing your home folder, it can't touch your backups.
You're right that I ultimately don;t care about anything outside my home folder - I can just reinstall to get all that back.
Because OS X also has those things - files downloaded from the internet have the url embedded and you are warned if you open them (before they execute) and you have to ok that.
It also has prompts for admin functions, UAC style (except it's done pro-actively - you have to unlock to change, rather than clicking something and having the system pop up a dialog box), as well as the usual admin requirements to install certain things.
I believe it does have a leg up, but only in the sense that Unix in general has a leg up because the starting point was so different. Unix, Linux and the like have always had a leg up in that respect just by their nature. It's not trolling, it's simply fact. Windows has got much better in recent years - Win 7 is actually really good, and the instances of viruses is going down.
And these "drive bys" do not just work - if you believe the stories then you're buying the FUD. For any of this malware you work you have to bypass the "this is an application downloaded from the internet - run it? yes/no" and then click again in the installer (and with the first version, give admin password), and then install it. There's no "drive by infection". Have you ever actually used a Mac or are you just going on what you've read in a poorly written article?
This doesn't diminish security issues - clearly trojans are unpleasant and annoying, but this whole "menacing" malware that's "plaguing" OS X is really just sensationalism at this point.
We're talking viruses and malware here, not the sort of security compromises that happen at pwn2own (although both are clearly important).
And I challenge "shown to be least secure" when all the headlines are about how it's "first to fall" because either people want to win the Mac (possibly, possibly not) or simply because the schedule puts it up for attack first (the Linux box isn;t even available until the second day).
There's no "koolaid drinking" here, just examination of the current state of affairs. The ten year track record of OS X and Unix in general is pretty good. Windows' track record is getting better. No OS is immune.
Bu you just keep Apple bashing, don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good rant.
Safari 5.0.5, also Chrome 11.0.696.71, although I tend not to GIS on Chrome.
Yes, and I'm hoping we don't much beyond that level due to a different culture regarding malware and a different initial start base that is better set up to deal with security problems. Sort of the way that Win 7 has finally started to get it right - OS X is starting about there regarding account setup/access controls/limitation on root user/no need to run as admin etc etc.
You'll note my use of quotes, and the tone of the entire post being one of sarcasm.
I do think my Apple gadgets are cool, but not because I paid more for them. I also think many of the other computer gadgets I own are cool, all for different reasons. I even throw a little cool factor at "old faithful" running Win 95 that is hooked up to the very old FTIR machine for those days when all the Bruker ones go on the blink.
I'm not sure how you managed to infer that I found my gadgets (that I didn't even directly refer to - I was speaking in the first person from the OP's PoV about unnamed third party antagonists) that I found them cool purely because I spent more on them.
Oooh, burn!
So, your response is... to repeat your initial insult?
Change the record, or pass the ball.
Ah, so it's ok to be fast and loose with the definitions and so on as long as it makes Apple look bad (vulnerability to viruses and worms is a considerably different kettle of fish to being vulnerable to trojans), but when it comes to Android malware, there's a sudden flood of "it's not that bad" and "it's a trojan, it's not *infecting* apps on the Android Market, how can it do that?!".
Just checking.
I'll concede the point if you'll go and post the same "it's ok to muddy it up" response to all those Android folks doing damage control over there.
Specificity is important, especially where security is concerned.
Indeed, I should have said what I was searching for - the ORLY owl. A friend and I have been trading more and more outlandish ones back and forth as we both complete various menial day-to-day chores, just to brighten the mood.
I suspect that the malware authors went for things that people search for a lot - so that would be porn, memes, and popular culture.
Sigh. Don't you have a bridge to guard?
The article that is practically on the same page as this one mentions the daily updates to the definitions, and the daily checking by the new tool. Given that it's June 1st at the moment, "next month" is just baseless bashing.
People have been saying this for the entire life of OS X, and I say "put up or shut up" - the claims are that it's just not worth it, or that no one cares, but that it's really a ripe, low-hanging fruit that is so vulnerable... yet no one has bothered, in 10 years , to even *try*? Not even to "stick Mac users' noses in it" (with the sort of "HAHAHA!" crowing that we've seen from slashdot users over this simple trojan).
You're telling me that *no one* in over 10 years has decided to prove this supposed "common wisdom" that OS X is virus free solely due to install base? I simply don;t buy it. The security model it uses, the security updates it receives, and the software base that it is based on would suggest otherwise.
As far as I know there has been a single proof of concept virus that has never been seen in the wild and has a 24 hour self termination feature, and that the bug it exploits is patched.
Now, I'm not going to claim any OS is immune, but I would say OS X's track record is pretty damn good.
People use Java?
Translation: I'm a friendless neckbeard living in my mom's basement on Mountain Dew and Cheetos and am jealous of all those "hipster" kids with their friends and "cool" gadgets. Girls don't seem to appreciate I compiled my own kernel!
See, I can generalise too!
(seriously, I cannot see how you got to where you were from the OP's question, which had no grandstanding or platform flaming or anything, just a query about an issue that is apparently "widespread" and "menacing" (according to the article) on OS X.
This style of "FTFY" post is just tiresome and belongs back in high school kid.
What viruses, as a matter of interest? Or do you mean trojans, which are not the same thing at all - which are an issue for any OS, regardless of security since it's a social engineering issue (less so for Linux I would imagine, since the user base tends to be skewed towards people who can spot a trojan from a mile off).
It's hardly just "security through obscurity" - you make it sound like OS X was designed like a car with the doors and windows unlocked, when it clearly wasn't. It's not perfect, but it is pretty good, and it does receive regular security updates in anticipation of attacks against it, it's just not until now that we've seen anything widespread, and even then it's been pretty limited - an ineffective trojan that is easy to remove (takes about 3 minutes total, or less) that requires you give it your express permission to install (and your admin password). The new one is modified to be local user only, so doesn't even have root.
It's not great, clearly, since any malware targeting your platform is a pain in the ass, but you're painting it like OS X has been sitting here doing nothing for the 10 years it's been around and only escaped by standing behind Windows - the legions of security updates and software policy on the OS itself would beg to differ.
Not that even the very best and most secure OS could stop this malware (having never "seen" it before), since it's entirely a social engineering security bypass. The conman tricked his way past your security guards and is stealing your TV.
I have seen it attempt to get me to download it - I got hit by a google image search result where it showed me a "Finder" in Safari, with an almost convincing progress bar etc while it "scanned for viruses".
I didn't click the download button though.
It's a new piece of malware, as far as definitions go. It will be blocked tomorrow when the tool checks for new definitions.
It still requires that you dismiss the "this file appears to be a file downloaded from the internet from [address], are you sure you want to run it?" dialog box. Plus, with no admin password it's local user only (which is still bad, just not root capable).
Alas, the arms race begins. At least it's only trojans.
They use supercaps as part of the system - there are big high voltage warnings that you need to put on the car when the system is charged, since it can seriously lash out and bite you if the car is just off-track and you're the first to touch it. There's a video on youtube somewhere of one of the pit crew being thrown back when he took a hit from the KERS system without wearing his insulating gloves.
Why? They make a product, and sell that product. Just like Nike makes products, and sells them. I don't think you understand the difference between a homogenous product chain and antitrust/anticompetitive practices, which I assume you're driving at with this fact-free statement.
It's not illegal to choose what you sell in your store (apart from for discriminatory reasons), and not illegal to have a monopoly. Apple is no different to any other single brand manufacturer with a retail and online presence - do you think Nike should be sued for not selling Addidas products in their stores? Do you think they should be forced to carry a competitor's product? Extending it, do you think that any retailer should be forced to sell something against their will?
This is my thinking too. The huge build up and reveal to the "new" Daleks, and the subsequent behind the scenes stuff with them really said "we think these are going to be awesome!" However, the fan reaction to the new design has put them off and they have had to do an emergency rethink - probably by bringing back the old ones.
If only the London 2012 committee had done the same thing with the 2012 logo, after realising that after £500,000 or something crazy to design it that *everyone* universally hates it, and the most flattering thing anyone can say is that it looks like Lisa Simpson giving a blow job. The "knocked up in 5 minutes" suggestions posted to the BBC site were almost all better than the official train wreck - although perhaps not the Goatse one that managed to slip through and get posted on the BBC's site.
You seem to fail to appreciate that both the Hindenburg disaster and a plane crash today resulted in loss of life and property. The Fukushima disaster is a tremendous problem for Japan.
Point out to me exactly where I indicated anything of the sort?
You are attempting to assign meaning to things out of context to support your faulty argument, not me. You keep going on about the "assurances that this couldn;t happen" by politicians [and to some extent, the engineers who design the plants] and then point to a nuclear accident as "proof" they were lying to you, and thus that all nuclear power is unsafe and no one who is pro-nuclear should be trusted.
I have already explained that the "impossible" claim is very specific to the conditions of the accident that occurred at Chernobyl, and that it really cannot happen in a western plant - they are simply not designed the same way. This is where the Hndenburg disaster comes in. It crashed because the skin of the Zeppelin caught fire and burned away, consuming the whole craft because they had doped the canvas skin with a compound very similar to rocket fuel that burns extremely readily. Excellent for deflecting the sun's rays and maintaining the temperature and thus the buoyancy of the airship, but not so good when it burns. Now, if an aviation expert where to tell you that the accident that occurred was not possible with a modern airliner, you would look very silly if you tried to twist it around and claim that he was talking about *any* accident, or the fact that people die in both sorts of crashes. No one is debating that. I am pointing out that your logic is flawed.
Now, I don't want to get into a huge debate about the relative environmental impact of coal vs nuclear energy - coal really doesn't come out winning, but hey, at least it doesn't have that "scary" radiation word attached to it.
Nuclear energy is clean and safe - don't take my word for it, just look at the safety record over the course of its use as a commercial energy source. Even with the extremely unusual and impossible in non-RBMK reactors accident, it is still much safer, cleaner, less environmentally damaging and has killed an order of magnitude fewer people than coal.
The future is obvious - a base load of nuclear stations (instead of coal and gas), backed by renewable sources for peak power (wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc). We are selling ourselves down the river though, because the big advantage to coal is that it is *cheap* - that is the reason that nuclear power is not our current base load provider and only accounts for about 18% of the load in the UK, less in other places. At least the French have it right, but economies of scale are hurting them.
I'm not sure what's more amusing - the non-sequitur about claims of safety regarding air travel or that you think Fukushima is *anything like* Chernobyl at all.
It's not even in the same ballpark in damage, type of accident, consequences, style of reactor... in fact, just about the only thing they have in common is that both places were nuclear power plants.
If you can't even acknowledge that the similarities between the two accidents are about as similar as the Hindenburg disaster and the crash of a modern airliner, then I'm not even sure it's worth debating it with you (which I'm more than happy to do).
Chernobyl really cannot happen in "the west" purely because it's literally impossible (due to the reactor designs in question), not because nuclear power stations are immune to accidents.
I'm not sure that you are understanding my position - it is that OSS is *not* a poisoned chalice, and I was addressing what I saw as the OP's wider rant that profiting from OSS code you didn't personally write was immoral, which I don't necessarily think is true (licences permitting).
I suggest you look up how potatoes grow.
Seriously. Google > potato > click search.
We'll wait.