Live data from Hacker News

Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

github.com

131–140 of 239 posts

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#131

Same as most USB to serial adapters, Prolific (PL2303) and FTDI FT232RL. What's fun is one of them updated a driver, which bricks counterfeits. https://hackaday.com/2016/02/01/ftdi-drivers-break-fake-chip...

I sort of understand how the FTDI thing happened. They were charging an arm and a leg for an ancient IC, so China cloning it was really a no brainer.

Thankfully, 1-2 companies came up with their own competing solutions which you now can buy for cents. If you are still using FTDI chips (fake or original) you might want to update your designs.

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody's complaining that FTDI didn't make their drivers compatible with counterfeit hardware. They're complaining that FTDI deliberately took actions in their driver code to damage any supposedly counterfeit devices that were plugged into a system. To use your example, imagine if Apple released an update to iOS that would scan any jailbroken iPhones on the same network, and if it detected one, would use a backdoor t…

One bad example after another. Why is this so hard for folks to grasp. The proper example would be fake iPhones made in Switzerland sold in the US as through they were real iPhones. If that's the case, then, YES, Apple would be right to brick them with an update. Absolutely. I ask again: In what alternate reality would Apple be required to allow fake iPhones, look the other way and just let them be?

Your example is also off, because we’re talking about an internal component rather than an entire device. If a repair shop doesn’t use a Genuine Apple replacement screen, does Apple have to support it? No. Is going out of their way to physically destroy these replacement screens anti-consumer behavior? Yes.

A key point here is that it’s impossible for the malicious driver to know what representation the seller made to the consumer— the presence of a nonoriginal part doesn’t necessarily mean there was any fraud involved.

Edit to add:

> ... fake iPhones made in Switzerland sold in the US as through they were real iPhones. If that's the case, then, YES, Apple would be right to brick them with an update. Absolutely.

Only after obtaining a court order to that effect. Destroying someone else’s property without due process is generally not acceptable, regardless of how right you are. To step away from technology for a moment, is it ok for a glassmaker to go around town breaking windows because they’re allegedly made with counterfeit glass?

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#133
Well, the original components costs 1-2 dollar when bought directly from Dallas but you can buy 10 PCBs (with additional supporting components) for $3 on AliExpress. It was extremely obvious to everyone that these were fakes.

But... while I fully understand the ethical issues, there is also an interesting engineering challenge here were you can sometimes get your design to work even with crappy fake components.

Btw, if you think this is bad, try ordering some jfets from China...

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#134
Pretty much every ic you buy from China was pulled off a scrap PCB by a 10 y/o girl squatting in a puddle of solder and burned wires using a torch. The chips are binned, straightened, tops sanded and black topped and marked with whatever sells best.

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#135
post #17

I am a bit disappointed about that a lot of his claims how to identify clones are referenced with [5] own research. I mean doesnt one need confirmation from the IP holder?

I mean, the entire article is basically documentation of that research. This isn't a peer-reviewed piece of work, it's a writeup of someone's fairly exhaustive research into a problem they encountered. I don't see why you'd need confirmation from another person that something you bought doesn't do what it's part number claims it should.

Maybe I didnt read it carefully enough but to me he does not research it but just states it. I mean some (non counterfeit) production runs might not have the expected quality isnt this possible? If the rom signature is not garanteed by the ip holder than it still might be legit.

Probably he is right though, but to me it reads like the conclusion is the premise. (Might be due to the writeup though)

Edit: here is my bone: it says: how do I know? If the ROM does not follow the pattern 28-xx-xx-xx-xx-00-00-xx then the DS18B20 sensor is a clone [5]. And here I would have expected [5] to be the datasheet or something, but not 'own research'. The idea of citations is also to make your claims more verifiable.

Now, if we look at the Datasheet: https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ds/DS18B20.pdf it actually says:"The least significant 8 bits of the ROM code contain the DS18B20’s 1-Wire family code: 28h. The next 48 bits contain a unique serial number. The most significant 8 bits contain a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) byte that is calculated from the first 56 bits of the ROM code. A detailed explanation of the CRC bits is provided in the CRC Generation section." So the 28 is required. The '00-00' part is ust the higher bits of the unique serial number.

I wouldnt be surprised if different factories get different higher bits.

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are talking about compatibility but the FTDI case was a case of the company intentionally shipping malicious code used to brick the clones, no? Quote from article: "the latest driver bricks the fake chips, rendering them inoperable with any computer"

Well done. They have the absolute right to create drivers that only work with their products in order to assure quality, performance and function. Fault is at the feet of the clone makers and those who used clone chips, not the legitimate manufacturer. I am actually astounded by some of these responses. However, I do understand that they likely come from a lack of experience delivering hardware products at scale, and…

Since you are blindly defending FDTI and blaming the designers, let me add another crucial detail that might change your mind:

A lot of fakes were distributed through reputable sources as originals. So you could for example build a medical device using expensive original components from digikey, only to see it breaking in the hospital for no apparent reason.

I bet people have _died_ due to FTDIs actions.

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well done. They have the absolute right to create drivers that only work with their products in order to assure quality, performance and function. Fault is at the feet of the clone makers and those who used clone chips, not the legitimate manufacturer. I am actually astounded by some of these responses. However, I do understand that they likely come from a lack of experience delivering hardware products at scale, and…

What part of: > the FTDI case was a case of the company intentionally shipping malicious code used to brick the clones don't you understand? FTDI does indeed have the absolute right to create drivers that only work with their products, but to intentionally damage a third party product so that it no longer works anywhere else, including with that third party's drivers, seems egregious.

There are two issues here, and they are separable.

One is the issue of intellectual property theft and what a company has a right to do in order to protect itself.

FTDI invested massive amounts of money to produce excellent solutions for a number of problems. I have personally been using their chips in my designs for over twenty years. I don't even remember when I started, it's possible it was at the very start of their history.

The fake chip makers --mostly in China-- steal intellectual property with impunity, hurting companies, ecosystems and costing job. In some cases they have completely imploded companies in the West.

We can either accept this at our peril or take a stand against it. The only people who are OK with intellectual property theft are those who don't understand the subject or haven't lived it.

My experience? I've had the experience of mortgaging my home to fund a business and then watch a company out of China clone my product and bring it into the US and European markets at half my price. I can't even begin to describe what this did do my business, the people who worked for me, my family and my health. I didn't lose it all because I am a resilient SOB, but it put me in the hospital twice in four years due to the stress.

It's really easy to voice opinions from behind a keyboard when the consequences of said opinions carry no personal consequences.

A company like FTDI and their products did not materialize from nothing. There are people, families, investment and hard work behind such offerings. Clones are not a victimless crime.

The other issue, of the two that I said were separable, is the damage to consumers due to fake chips being bricked by FTDI.

That, in my mind, is a separate matter and a very complex one at that.

There are at least two angles to this one. The first is that the hardware they were using was intentionally made with fake FTDI chips. This is likely the case for most cheap hardware coming out of China. If that garbage doesn't work it is 100% the responsibility of the designers of the hardware. They are thieves. Plain and simple.

If, on the other hand, the designers of the hardware had no idea and fake chips got into the supply chain, the problem is far more complex. At that point it is a question of tracing the supply chain in order to understand, if possible, how it happened. I won't go into the many permutations this could put on the table. Suffice it to say that anyone dealing with China knows full-well what they could be in for. Caveat emptor applies in the case of the OEM.

This is where the problem becomes far more complex and it becomes political. It is our politicians (US/Europe) who allowed us to come to a moment in time where an entire country is openly stealing intellectual property at almost every layer in industry as well as freely distributing it across the world with impunity. This is a far larger problem than a bunch of USB devices getting bricked because a company in Europe decides to defend themselves from what must be a massive loss of revenue of unimaginable scale. I can only imagine what FTDI could be, the people they could employ and the technologies they could develop if fakes could not exist in the market.

Counterfeit products have real and non-trivial consequences to entire societies and their existence should not be taken lightly.

I don't have the solution to this problem. Sadly, it's political. What I do know is that I'll be damned if I am going to blame the victim.

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However simply repeating requests until sensor reports a valid value (!=+85C and !=-127C) works fine. You know you're dealing with counterfeits and you know they're unreliable, but you've somehow convinced yourself that despite all the uncovered variance sitting on the table, if you keep poking long enough until the component returns some non-edge-case value, then it "works fine". I must have hopped on the sanity t…

You are indeed missing something here :) Long 1-wire networks are notoriously unreliable [1]. Something that works fine today can stop working tomorrow. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used anywhere. They have their niche. If I want my heating system monitor to report temperatures once per hour and it takes me 5 tries and 10 seconds to read a sensor, I call it good enough. If monitor doesn't succeed after 20…

Thanks for the perspective. 2 points in which I disagree: on design and on reliability.

First, on design. In your cited app note, Maxim explicitly denotes from the onset:

> Operating a 1-Wire network beyond the limits or disregarding advice given in this document may result in unreliable network performance.

The key operator that I see here is "beyond the limits", to which Maxim engineers appear to have done a fair job of specifying. Indeed, there's a lot of fine print in the published datasheet[1] alone on "parasite power mode", but a first pass suggests this is nothing more than a nuanced design challenge, not one of questionable reliability. If your long 1-wire network works today but not tomorrow, then it's difficult to swallow attribution of the issue to a singular authentic component constrained by documented performance specs rather than the system's overarching design.

Second, on reliability. Since practicing engineers don't have the leisure of independently validating every bit of specified electrical minutae, we generally have to extend some level of trust to what the component vendors specify in datasheets unless presented with evidence to the contrary (because bugs). I poke fun at your "works fine" remark above because it reads like what you care about is some semblance of establishing trivial, intermittent communication while handwaving the accuracy of the reported temperature measurement, especially given all the effort to demonstrate and document that the physical implementations of these counterfeits are clearly different...which renders the reference datasheet null and void in its entirety...which I therefore conclude nothing about these counterfeit sensors can be trusted in any application with meaningful skin in the game. To describe these counterfeits as "somewhat reliable" strikes me as somewhere between naively optimistic and outright delusional.

But hey, your hardware, your problems...just saying. :)

[1] https://datasheets.maximintegrated.com/en/ds/DS18B20.pdf

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well done. They have the absolute right to create drivers that only work with their products in order to assure quality, performance and function. Fault is at the feet of the clone makers and those who used clone chips, not the legitimate manufacturer. I am actually astounded by some of these responses. However, I do understand that they likely come from a lack of experience delivering hardware products at scale, and…

Since you are blindly defending FDTI and blaming the designers, let me add another crucial detail that might change your mind: A lot of fakes were distributed through reputable sources as originals. So you could for example build a medical device using expensive original components from digikey, only to see it breaking in the hospital for no apparent reason. I bet people have _died_ due to FTDIs actions.

> I bet people have _died_ due to FTDIs actions.

I'll bet that's an exaggeration. If you are going to say something like that you have to back it up with data.

I could just as easily make the claim that people have died due to fakes. We can do that and go round and round a silly pointless circle.

The problem of fakes is real. And it is likely very much political (addressed in another comment). What is is NOT is the legitimate manufacturer's fault, even if they defend their existence by refusing to allow fakes to function with their drivers.

Fake chip manufacturers are perfectly free to do the required R&D, issue and support their own drivers. However, they are thieves, and prefer to steal rather than do the hard work and take the risks their victims undertake.

Re: Your DS18B20 temperature sensor is likely a fake, counterfeit, clone

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well done. They have the absolute right to create drivers that only work with their products in order to assure quality, performance and function. Fault is at the feet of the clone makers and those who used clone chips, not the legitimate manufacturer. I am actually astounded by some of these responses. However, I do understand that they likely come from a lack of experience delivering hardware products at scale, and…

Since you are blindly defending FDTI and blaming the designers, let me add another crucial detail that might change your mind: A lot of fakes were distributed through reputable sources as originals. So you could for example build a medical device using expensive original components from digikey, only to see it breaking in the hospital for no apparent reason. I bet people have _died_ due to FTDIs actions.

> A lot of fakes were distributed through reputable sources as originals. So you could for example build a medical device using expensive original components from digikey

Medical device manufacturers would want both certificates of conformity and traceable parts. They'd want these if they built the product themself; they'd specify this if they got a sub-contract manufacturer. If the component supplier can't offer traceability back to the real manufacturer you'd probably want to buy from someone else.

https://www.jjsmanufacturing.com/blog/traceability-in-electr...

I don't think bricking the devices is the right thing for FTDI to do. The consumer friendly thing to do is give warning and an FDTI contact email to report the product so FDTI can talk to the manufacturer.

Post reply on HN