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

FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

eevblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#101

Post by sliverstorm »

bri3d wrote: post #22
Someone1234 wrote: post #2

Good for them. I mean that. If they want to redesign their driver so it fails to work with non-genuine FTDI chips, go for it. Nobody will judge them. Heck if they want to show a message that informs the user they're using a fake, that's fine too. I think most people seemed to agree that bricking fakes was too far (and also could be considered illegal in some countries/areas). It also negatively impacted innocent part…

What I don't understand is why they don't make the messaging more clear. In their pre-bricking drivers, FDTI caused the counterfeits to fail in confusing and counterintuitive ways, rather than just telling the user that the chip is fake. As a user, if my device stops working randomly, my first thought is certainly not "there was a counterfeit chip in the supply chain for this hardware and the drivers must be rejectin…

Do we have evidence FTDI was in fact making the counterfeits randomly fail on purpose, separate from this bricking thing? Hanlon's Razor is still worth thinking about.

For example I have a Prolific chip that is almost certainly a fake that only works with driver X.Y.Z, I always assumed that was because the fakers targeted that driver and made an imperfect spoof.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#102

Post by jeff_tyrrill »

mwill wrote: post #25

It's interesting watching this play out with reputable, legal companies. Something similar happened earlier in the year with Nintendo 3DS flashcards, however the software was not just disabling the flashcard, but would brick the users 3DS. Their response was essentially, "Yeah? What are you going to do about it?" and promising to replace the 3DS of anyone who could prove they were using a legitimate card.

I wanted to reply with a quick note to clarify to those quickly reading this post that it was the flash card maker, not Nintendo, adding the bricking code.

Your post is accurate, but to those not already familiar with this incident (such as myself, until I searched for stories about it), a quick read will give the impression that this was Nintendo's doing, when it wasn't.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#103

Post by tedunangst »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #33
jameshart wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What specific piece of equipment was affected? (not doubting - just curious, as I've not come across specific examples of people being affected by this driver)

This guy in /r/sysadmin claims 35 devices nuked: http://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/2k6wjk/fyi_ftdi_de...

So, in other words, they didn't damage your equipment.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#104

Post by jessaustin »

welterde wrote: post #92
wpietri wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting question. Is the VID a signal of protocol compatibility? Or a brand name? In a way it's both, but since end users almost never see the VID, I suspect a lawyer would have an easy time that under the law it's more the former than the latter, and therefore not covered under trademark and related laws.

Especially since it's the only way to be compatible as far as I know (since (VID,PID) determines the driver that will get loaded for proprietary protocols). Also.. Can you even claim any special rights to a non-government registered trademark/brand name (one that is registered at a non-government entity - the USB Implementers Forum in this case)?

It seems like trademark would be really difficult to attach to (VID, PID) if no one in the supply chain actually used any USB-IF logos. Basically FTDI assumed a right to destroy property based on a violation of a contract neither the property owner, nor any of the chain of vendors that produced the property, had been a party to.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#105

Post by jessaustin »

mwill wrote: post #25

It's interesting watching this play out with reputable, legal companies. Something similar happened earlier in the year with Nintendo 3DS flashcards, however the software was not just disabling the flashcard, but would brick the users 3DS. Their response was essentially, "Yeah? What are you going to do about it?" and promising to replace the 3DS of anyone who could prove they were using a legitimate card.

Few will be surprised if prosecutors are found to care more about shenanigans in the MS-Win ecosystem than those in the Nintendo ecosystem. Actually FTDI may be in more danger from class action tort lawyers. This is almost a perfect class for them, in that lots of people suffered a limited but not negligible harm.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#106

Post by the_ancient »

chrisBob wrote: post #78
Igglyboo wrote: post #4

Good, destroying a device you legally purchased is unacceptable, whether you knew it was a counterfeit or not. It's not their job to police that kind of stuff. Failing to work with counterfeit devices is completely fine and would have been a much better approach than straight up bricking them.

In the US there isn't a legal way to purchase counterfeit goods. It may be different in other countries. Similar to stolen property, the person left holding the bag gets in trouble too. Edit: after actually looking up the issue instead of guessing it turns out that in most places (other than France and Italy) there isn't much at stake for the end user, and almost all of the laws are written to stop the sale or manufa…

It is however perfectly legal to make a hardware device that could make use of the Same API and driver i.e a clone. Provided it is not branded as a FTDI chip, but rather "FTDI Driver compatible"

Now that may violate the terms and lic of the driver software on windows (not on linux because it is GPLv2) but that would not make it illegal to buy nor would it give them (FTDI) the legal right to modify that hardware

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#107

Post by sliverstorm »

joezydeco wrote: post #42
serf wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but looking at the physical differences between the chips it's probably not something that difficult to ensure. The counterfeit chips are built in a totally different fashion, with different size and materials, on a different process tech. http://zeptobars.ru/en/read/FTDI-FT232RL-real-vs-fake-supere...

But that's impossible for something like a Windows driver to determine. The only way the FTDI driver could determine if the chip counterfeit was a slight difference in how the counterfeit chips handled a certain EEPROM write. And the counterfeiters will be sure the next revision of the chip takes care of this corner case.

Sure, the driver doesn't know the manufacturing process. His point is the chips are simply so different, there are bound to be obvious ways for the driver to tell.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#108

Post by sliverstorm »

nnnnni wrote: post #31
mwill wrote: post #25

It's interesting watching this play out with reputable, legal companies. Something similar happened earlier in the year with Nintendo 3DS flashcards, however the software was not just disabling the flashcard, but would brick the users 3DS. Their response was essentially, "Yeah? What are you going to do about it?" and promising to replace the 3DS of anyone who could prove they were using a legitimate card.

...which is a really great way to get budding hobbyist programmers to move to a different piece of hardware.

Honestly I doubt Nintendo cares about selling consoles to game pirates. They, like everyone else in that business, make their money on game sales.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#109

Post by bri3d »

sliverstorm wrote: post #101
bri3d wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is why they don't make the messaging more clear. In their pre-bricking drivers, FDTI caused the counterfeits to fail in confusing and counterintuitive ways, rather than just telling the user that the chip is fake. As a user, if my device stops working randomly, my first thought is certainly not "there was a counterfeit chip in the supply chain for this hardware and the drivers must be rejectin…

Do we have evidence FTDI was in fact making the counterfeits randomly fail on purpose, separate from this bricking thing? Hanlon's Razor is still worth thinking about. For example I have a Prolific chip that is almost certainly a fake that only works with driver X.Y.Z, I always assumed that was because the fakers targeted that driver and made an imperfect spoof.

The Prolific counterfeit protection is documented as being explicit (and not the result of an accidental incompatibility): Prolific introduced a check in later drivers which requires a specific response the fakes didn't implement.

http://dreamlayers.blogspot.com/2011/10/pl-2303-code-10-erro...

Thankfully, Prolific chose to simply prevent their drivers from starting with an easy-to-Google code, rather than causing frustrating failures or bricks.

I would assume but honestly don't know that the FTDI random failure code was also intentional. All signs point to intentionality: it appeared in all drivers after a specific version, was accompanied by a change to the EULA indicating that counterfeit chips wouldn't work, and accompanied a lot of messaging from FTDI about avoiding counterfeits.

I suppose someone should break out a disassembler and some USB snooping tools to check for sure.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#110

Post by sliverstorm »

nraynaud wrote: post #75
jws wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FTDI chips and drivers also have the ability to toggle a few extra pins. If you are making a device this can be important enough to lure you away from just being a generic USB Communications Device Class profile. (Think a 'reset' function or a 'enter firmware update mode' function.) Given that as a consumer/purchaser I have no way of knowing if I have a counterfeit chip or if the next batch produced by a manufact…

Good remark. I didn't think about that, because I use a real USB chip for USB, I don't try to convert it to serial (I like the idea of having various communications going at once, the stall, etc.)

serial is your bread-and-butter on tiny low pin count underpowered IC's.

The V8's of the micro-controller world are great, but sometimes you have just 2000mAh to get you through a year of operation.

Post reply on HN