FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

Post by yuhong » Wed, Oct 22, 2014, 8:32 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #91

0x0 wrote: post #19

I hope this causes a major and publicly visible malfunction in some important device/installation/machinery, of course with no harm done to any persons, but enough of an embarrasment to really set an example, so no vendor will think of pulling tricks like these in the future. Takeaway lesson: End users should never touch anything remotely FTDI-like, since it's probably impossible to verify if the device is genuine or…

I hope this causes a major and publicly visible malfunction in some important device/installation/machinery, of course with no harm done to any persons I actually hope that this does cause an event drastic enough so that FTDI will have blood on its hands that ends in jail time for management and engineers. I don't want to see anyone hurt, especially not innocent third parties, but fuck FTDI, fuck the management who o…

Post by deelowe » Wed, Oct 22, 2014, 8:47 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #44

bri3d wrote: post #7

FTDI have been anti-consumer for years - their last several drivers have introduced intentional instability and Code 10 errors for suspected counterfeit devices. I think this is totally crappy. I see what they're trying to do (create market incentive for consumers to insist on real FTDI chips) but the reality is that it's just screwing over innocent consumers who buy a device.

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…

Post by cnvogel » Wed, Oct 22, 2014, 8:48 PM UTC

revelation wrote: post #59

dsl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by geographomics » Wed, Oct 22, 2014, 8:49 PM UTC

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…

Post by deelowe » Wed, Oct 22, 2014, 8:54 PM UTC

spiritplumber wrote: post #22

dmitrygr wrote: post #5

IF this is on purpose and can be proven so, it is most definitely illegal!

All they have to say is "We write our drivers to support our chips, if it messes with other chips that incorrectly identify as ours, that's just the way it went, it'd cost us extra to support them and why should we help our competitors". Practically impossible to prove otherwise.