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

191–200 of 315 posts

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#191

Post by Vendan »

Vendan wrote: post #185
imrehg wrote: post #174

I'm designing an Arduino-compatible board[1] that supposed to have an FTDI chip for ease of design. This whole thing makes me reconsider it, what would be the best way to replace it some other solution? Do I have any real option if I want to stay within the Open Parts Library[2]? [1]: https://www.hwtrek.com/product_preview/VTZUZV9k [2]: http://www.seeedstudio.com/wiki/Open_parts_library

not sure, but shouldn't you be able to use the ATMEGA32U4-AU as the microcontroller and get usb for free? Here's a good place to start for a bootloader that'll do your usb setup for you... http://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=124459.15

Just looked at your product idea, see you already had planned a good microcontroller. Maybe replace the FTDI with the ATMEGA and make a firmware that'll allow in circuit programming so you really can't brick the main microcontroller?

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#192

Post by Vendan »

bsder wrote: post #183
rcxdude wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I never really understood how they justified the prices on their chips when you could literally code the same thing in a week or two on a micro which was half the price. About the only reason I see to use them is they have quite neat pre-made cable assemblies.

The analog side. Being able to do the voltage regulation and oscillator operation without external components is actually non-trivial.

The half the cost parts already have internal oscillators, and I have yet to see a use of an FTDI type chip where there's no other microcontroller, so you have voltage regulation already, not to mention the 5V from usb. All your points = invalid.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#193

Post by duncan_bayne »

mey wrote: post #11

I haven't gotten into the DIY/Hacker/Arduino stuff but it seems like there would also be plenty of consumer devices that may be impacted that don't have correct supply chain control (or care about the source of their chips). I wonder if Windows will pull the driver.

Microsoft has confirmed that they're aware of the issue, and are investigating. No news yet on what (if any) action they'll take. But I'd expect they'll do something, as it would appear to the end user that "Windows Update broke my $DEVICE".

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#195

Post by wyager »

tcas wrote: post #70
wyager wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The newest version I can find on their site says it's from 2012. Link?

Oops, was dealing with a similar issue with the Prolific 2303, which was dealt with by using a newer driver, I haven't run into the issue yet with FTDI (which I don't as much).

Bummer. The FTDI driver crashes my mac quite frequently.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#196

Post by Vendan »

pjc50 wrote: post #142
JackC wrote: post #126

It'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…

* we don't collect and burn all the infringing phones, we just make someone cut a check. * Destruction of trademark-infringing goods and copied media is quite common, though. In the UK, deliberately sabotaging hardware with drivers could be counted as a violation of the Computer Misuse Act, but there are hardly ever any prosecutions under that law.

Destruction after due process and by the proper authorities, yes. After all, it's a reverse engineered product. How does the software know that it's got FTDI stamped on it? Everything else is just implementation details.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#197

Post by sigterm »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #190
tmp26 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the HN crowd's preferred way of dealing with that kind of parasite?

If someone makes a compatible chip from scratch then they are not a parasite, they are a competitor.

Not if they label the "compatible chip" as the genuine ones.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#198

Post by TheLoneWolfling »

mariuolo wrote: post #106
Zizzle wrote: post #9

I foresee an arms race here. Next gen FTDI clones will work around this driver detection. Next FTDI driver has new detection code. Iterate until the counterfeit chips are indistinguishable from the real thing via software.

> Iterate until the counterfeit chips are indistinguishable from the real thing via software. Will they still cost less?

Probably

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#199

Post by iolsantr »

anigbrowl wrote: post #137
0x0 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

hah... Assuming the prototype is actually identical to the delivered product. People who want to skim money off the top aren't stupid, the prototype will probably contain the specified part and so will the first few lots. To insure validity of every part you need to test every part.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#200

Post by userbinator »

amckenna wrote: post #36

If 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…

I've seen that one before but what caught my attention this time was the "(M)FTDI FEB 2005" line - the design is approaching 10 years old, and the significance of that is the fact that IC layouts ("mask work") are only protected for 10 years by copyright law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Chip_Protection_A...

It's also completely legal to reverse-engineer an existing IC to duplicate its functionality in a different manner, which the cloners have definitely done in this case - they are completely different.

So it appears that the only thing the fake FTDI chip is violating is the trademark "FTDI", which might not even have been put there by the fab that produced the die, since they're branded 'Supereal'.

Post reply on HN