Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

eevblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 315 posts

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#51

Post by bradfa »

jjoonathan wrote: post #43

Does anyone know of good FTDI alternatives? Are there any clone makers that are relatively legit (i.e. they put their actual brand name on the chip, they support drivers, etc)? At $4.50 a pop for bog-standard bit-banging in a day and age where you can get ARM M4 SoCs for $2.75 a pop (n=1 prices) I would think FTDI would have more above-the-table competition than they do. Is the subterfuge required for illegitimate cl…

As mentioned in the eevblog forum, Microchip make the MCP2200 which is about $2 in single quantities. Seems similar in features to FT232 chips and reasonable in price.

http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?product=MC...

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#52

Post by FigBug »

smilekzs wrote: post #46
jjoonathan wrote: post #43

Does anyone know of good FTDI alternatives? Are there any clone makers that are relatively legit (i.e. they put their actual brand name on the chip, they support drivers, etc)? At $4.50 a pop for bog-standard bit-banging in a day and age where you can get ARM M4 SoCs for $2.75 a pop (n=1 prices) I would think FTDI would have more above-the-table competition than they do. Is the subterfuge required for illegitimate cl…

Didn't see your post when I was posting mine, but anyway -- CP210x.

Do you know if it supports non-standard baud rates on OS X> (Maybe Linux too?)

I use FTDI because I can easily run comm ports at 3 Mbit/s. OSX (and I think Linux too) does support comm ports at non common baud rates. I'm looking for a way to add decently quick USB comms to a device without writing my own drivers. FTDI seems like the only option. Using HID is limited to 64KB/s.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#53

Post by seanp2k2 »

mmagin wrote: post #10

As mentioned, Prolific's USB serial driver previously dropped support for counterfeit some Prolific chips, albeit not in quite as nasty of a way.

And I'm totally fine with that, even though that also creates a bad UX, especially for users who previously had a working thing, updated their driver / software, and now have a broken thing.

Really hope everyone starts dumping FTDI and they end up in a class-action lawsuit. USB serial converters are a commodity these days, regardless of what these goons think. If they can't compete in a free market, they should find something else to do or go out of business.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#54

Post by pjc50 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #43

Does anyone know of good FTDI alternatives? Are there any clone makers that are relatively legit (i.e. they put their actual brand name on the chip, they support drivers, etc)? At $4.50 a pop for bog-standard bit-banging in a day and age where you can get ARM M4 SoCs for $2.75 a pop (n=1 prices) I would think FTDI would have more above-the-table competition than they do. Is the subterfuge required for illegitimate cl…

FTDI's major advantage is that their WHQL'd drivers are already installed with Windows. That's why people build chips to the same API.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#55

Post by sliverstorm »

13 wrote: post #48
sliverstorm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

screwing over innocent consumers who buy a device The consumer isn't exactly innocent. Hold on, hear me out. It's similar to black market goods. A consumer wants the lowest possible price. It turns out the goods he bought are stolen property. He didn't know , but he is not waived of responsibility. If he was truly unwitting he will not be prosecuted , but the goods will still be repossessed, etc. Basically, it is the…

No, that's not the case here. Fake FTDI chips are going to be used in absolutely everything, products from Alibaba to name brand professional stuff. It's pretty much guaranteed not everybody has complete control of their semiconductor supply chain, and even if they do there's an incentive for all companies to cut costs where they can. A consumer buying a product doesn't make an informed decision about the type of ser…

It shares the critical element of diffuse responsibility. Everyone can half-reasonably shrug their shoulders and say, "Well it isn't MY fault".

If a Sony product happens to have a fake FTDI chip in it, this is FTDI's way of incentivizing Sony (via angry customers) to manage their supply chain, because as you say there's an incentive even for Sony to cut costs where they can- perhaps by turning a blind eye when they get some suspicious batches of chips for a great price, and claiming ignorance later...

Everyone, in demanding the lowest price no matter what (all the way up the supply chain) bears part of the blame.

We are of course witnessing a visceral response on the part of HN voters reacting to my comment, who are exemplifying why this is a hard problem to tackle. It isn't MY responsibility!

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#56

Post by markrages »

bradfa wrote: post #51
jjoonathan wrote: post #43

Does anyone know of good FTDI alternatives? Are there any clone makers that are relatively legit (i.e. they put their actual brand name on the chip, they support drivers, etc)? At $4.50 a pop for bog-standard bit-banging in a day and age where you can get ARM M4 SoCs for $2.75 a pop (n=1 prices) I would think FTDI would have more above-the-table competition than they do. Is the subterfuge required for illegitimate cl…

As mentioned in the eevblog forum, Microchip make the MCP2200 which is about $2 in single quantities. Seems similar in features to FT232 chips and reasonable in price. http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?product=MC...

The Microchip part needs an external crystal or ceramic resonator for a time reference. The FTDI part doesn't need any external parts beyond bypass caps.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#57

Post by 0x0 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #38

Microsoft should revoke the driver's signature via their next CRL update, so that it refuses to install (effectively making the drivers unsigned). It is acting maliciously and will break consumer's hardware, even hardware which doesn't contain any FTDI chips. If FTDI have an issue with a company ripping off their IP then go sue that company. But what they're doing is catching consumers in the firing line, who will wi…

Isn't the WHQL process supposed to vet for malware like this?

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#59

Post by revelation »

dsl wrote: post #42
snarfy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their website: >The licence only allows use of the Software with, and the Software will only work with Genuine FTDI Components (as defined in the Licence Terms). Use of the Software as a driver for a component that is not a Genuine FTDI Component MAY IRRETRIEVABLY DAMAGE THAT COMPONENT. IANAL but I don't believe this disclaimer can possibly be valid. Personal property rights cannot be waived away with a disclaim…

How are your personal property rights being violated? If an ATI graphics card lied and claimed to be an nVidia card and the drivers cause it to overheat and catch fire, who is at fault? Should you be required to QA your drivers against counterfeit products? Edit: nobody has shown that the driver is intentionally writing the ID to 0, the counterfeit chip isn't even close to the same circuitry and could be screwing up…

This isn't a misconfiguration issue, or that Linux bug that bricked certain SCSI devices. No, they are explicitly asking the counterfeit chip to rewrite its USB PID to 0, which renders it unusable.

That's intentional and clearly malicious.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#60

Post by Someone1234 »

0x0 wrote: post #57
Someone1234 wrote: post #38

Microsoft should revoke the driver's signature via their next CRL update, so that it refuses to install (effectively making the drivers unsigned). It is acting maliciously and will break consumer's hardware, even hardware which doesn't contain any FTDI chips. If FTDI have an issue with a company ripping off their IP then go sue that company. But what they're doing is catching consumers in the firing line, who will wi…

Isn't the WHQL process supposed to vet for malware like this?

They may not be WHQL certified, per Wikipedia:

> A company can choose to sign their own drivers rather than go through the WHQL testing process. These drivers would not qualify for the "Certified for Windows" logos, but they would install on 64-bit versions of Windows and install without a warning message on 32-bit versions of Windows Vista or Windows 7. However, it will not install without a warning message on Windows XP.

If they are, I don't know enough about how rigorous Microsoft's certification process is now to comment. It used to be just looking for things that would cause kernel instability but it seems the standards have increase a lot since its exception.

Post reply on HN