Official response from @FTDIChip: https://twitter.com/mikelectricstuf/status/52491736815449292...
FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
131–140 of 315 posts
Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
#132It's interesting to consider from a legal perspective exactly why this isn't something a company is allowed to do. (Assuming the company did in fact intentionally damage people's chips, reversibly or not -- sounds like we don't know for sure yet?) - Intentionally sabotaging someone's stuff, legally, is more or less the same as intentionally taking it. Keying a car and driving it away might have different names but ar…
One could argue that using the official driver with counterfeit chips is outside intended purpose of the official driver, at which point the user is proceeding at his or her own risk.
Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
#133If anyone is curious what a real vs fake FTDI chip looks like under the hood (de-capped chip) this is a great analysis and some beautiful pictures. http://zeptobars.ru/en/read/FTDI-FT232RL-real-vs-fake-supere... Exerpt: "What's the economic reason of making software fake of well-known chip instead of making new one under your own name? This way they don't need to buy USB VID, sign drivers in Microsoft, no expenses on…
What is the HN crowd's preferred way of dealing with that kind of parasite?
Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
#134Microsoft 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…
Can we be sure that FTDI has programmed their driver with malicious intent? It may be that this an accidental side-effect of using counterfeit hardware with a genuine driver. Without access to the source code or a well-reversed disassembly of the FTDI driver, and a good grasp of the logic used in the counterfeit chip, one cannot be certain about this. And surely not to the extent of urging Microsoft to revoke driver…
They basically admit it on their license page:
http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/FTDriverLicenceTerms.htm
"Use of the Software as a driver for, or installation of the Software onto, a component that is not a Genuine FTDI Component, including without limitation counterfeit components, MAY IRRETRIEVABLY DAMAGE THAT COMPONENT."
Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure you realize that the counterfeiters operate in such a fashion and in regions of the world that make sueing them impossible. Which suck because it means FTDI really has no options to enforce their IP rights that don't hurt consumers.
Nobody would fault FTDI for releasing new drivers that don't work with counterfeit parts. That alone would cause enough inconvenience to manufacturers to make sure they use legitimate parts. It's the (unethical) bricking of the parts that has everybody up in arms.
"bricking" doesn't seem to be the right word. FTDI is making it so that the counterfeit chips don't work with any FTDI drivers, old or new. (Per the thread, all that happens is the PID is changed to a PID that no FTDI driver will recognize)
Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
#136If anyone is curious what a real vs fake FTDI chip looks like under the hood (de-capped chip) this is a great analysis and some beautiful pictures. http://zeptobars.ru/en/read/FTDI-FT232RL-real-vs-fake-supere... Exerpt: "What's the economic reason of making software fake of well-known chip instead of making new one under your own name? This way they don't need to buy USB VID, sign drivers in Microsoft, no expenses on…
+1 for the fake chip name. "Supereal" takes the cake
"Supereal" might not be the name of the fake itself, it might be just the name of the mask-programmable microcontroller they used.
"It seems that in this case Chinese designers implemented protocol-compatible "fake" chip, using mask-programmable microcontroller. This way they only needed to redo 1 mask - this is much cheaper than full mask set, and explains a lot of redundant pads on the die."
Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then the manufacturer is responsible for using junk parts to save money.
As mentioned elsewhere, it's almost impossible to make sure parts like these aren't counterfeit. And the parts aren't "junk", they're just unlicensed.
Not any more. Now you can just test the prototype to see if it runs the FDTI driver correctly. If it fails, your supplier doesn't get paid.
Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
My takeaway lesson is that end users should never trust closed source drivers. Can you picture a Linux or *BSD driver in which there is an intentional if (counterfeit) { do_damage(); }
Yes, I can. I can picture a product vendor using a modified Linux kernel with that code in a driver, or at least a moral equivalent. Eg, a NAS box which is "only compatible with brand X drives". Just because the code is available doesn't mean it does no damage. Only that you have the ability to find and fix the code.
A NAS box "only compatible with brand X drives" is nowhere near a NAS box that intentionally bricks non-brand X drives when attached.
As a side note, are there any known cases where a vendor has released open source code that intentionally bricks a device? I'd be surprised if they were not found legally liable if the intent was spelled out so clearly.
Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like it: http://www.silabs.com/products/interface/usbtouart/Pages/usb... USB 2.0 compliant, full-speed (12 Mbps) No external crystal required Up to 1024 Bytes of EEPROM or OTP ROM User-programmable custom Baud rates Supports all modem interface signals Baud Rates: up to 2 Mbps Industrial temperature –40 to +85 °C Datasheet: http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/CP21... UPDATE: On this PDF (pag…
The CP2102 - CP2104 will do 250k; the CP2101 will not. Also, the CP2102 and CP2103 have a fixed table of rates (one of which is 250k) while the CP2104 can do arbitrary rates (within reason, see section 6.1 for details: http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/cp21... ).
Thanks for correcting me!
Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s
#140Official response from @FTDIChip: https://twitter.com/mikelectricstuf/status/52491736815449292...
This is so incredibly tone-deaf and borderline childish, its shocking how badly FTDI as a company is run. It sounds like its run by a handful of pissed off neckbeards who don't know how bad publicity and a class action suit could destroy their company.