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

291–300 of 315 posts

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#291

Post by overgryphon »

0x0 wrote: post #57
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…

Isn't the WHQL process supposed to vet for malware like this?

I would be surprised if WHQL tested drivers on counterfeit hardware.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#292

Post by overgryphon »

userbinator wrote: post #214
sigterm wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But how is the driver to know what's written on the chip?

From FTDI's point of view, their driver's are not free, they are distributed for use by FTDI customers. FTDI doesn't want their drivers to run on non-FTDI chips regardless of whether they are marketed as real FTDI chips or not.

Counterfeit isn't the issue here so much as competing non-FTDI chips relying on FTDI to do the hard and expensive work of developing drivers for them.

Bricking non-FTDI hardware was extreme and guaranteed to make people angry. I wonder what the reaction would be if FTDI had instead made the driver not work on non-FTDI chips unless the end customer bought a license key from FTDI to use their drivers.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#293

Post by AlyssaRowan »

voltagex_ wrote: post #246

If anyone's still reading - here's annotated disassembly: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0mf-pmCIAAoPxS.png:large

I confirm this is an accurate analysis of the code - and that it's definitely intentional, malicious copy-protection software.

Wow. I haven't seen something this spectacularly dumb in a while. Should be entertaining! :)

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#294

Post by AlyssaRowan »

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…

These guys are apparently Glaswegian, so Scottish law. Computer Misuse Act territory, perhaps, in my (lay) opinion?

They aren't the first to do malicious copy-protection. It did not go well for the previous contenders. At all.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#295

Post by AlyssaRowan »

sigterm wrote: post #197
Dylan16807 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It'll be very interesting if they start making them as competitors now? I mean, they could.

This will not do wonders for FTDI's credibility. Indeed, it could very well put them out of business for good (from past experience), and we already know whoever's behind these clones can make a chip that does the job at a price people want…

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#296

Post by rasz_pl »

Vendan wrote: post #275
rasz_pl wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically "we will show FTDI by CONTINUING to not use their parts at all". People affected didnt want to use FTDI parts in the first place, they wanted fly by night $2 with free shipping special.

No, it's more "I could use FTDI parts(and I bet someplace like seeed would use the real thing), but if they are going to release drivers that have a kill command baked in(and we've seen that it's on purpose), I'm not gonna use them"

actually seed is one of confirmed sources of fakes :) someone had one of these http://www.seeedstudio.com/depot/UartSBee-V5-p-1752.html?cPa...

go pid 0

Seed is a small shenzhen company, I woulndt expect them to have legit parts to begin with anyway.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#297

Post by rasz_pl »

kabdib wrote: post #282
rasz_pl wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

of course you realize those chinese clones NEVER EVER shipped with genuine FTDI chips in the first place, right?

Doesn't matter. "Does not include an FTDI chip" is a desirable product feature now. Whether FTDI screwed customers is a debatable question. In any event, FTDI definitely screwed themselves .

Of course it matters, yesterday "includes fake, but cheap ftdi" was the desired feature.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#298

Post by rasz_pl »

makomk wrote: post #265
rasz_pl wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/ftdi-driver-kills-fake-... marcan: "In case anyone was still wondering if this is intentional and malicious... Straight out of their driver. Function/variable naming and comments mine. https://marcan.st/transf/ftdi_evil.png I figured out what's going on with the real chips: turns out their EEPROM is written in 32bit units. Writing to even addresses is ignored; the value is buffere…

So, definitely intentional then. They went to quite some effort to fix up the checksum by calculating and writing a suitable value to the address before the checksum location (updating the checksum would cause a write on genuine FTDI chips because it's an odd address). If they'd just written the VID as zero, presumably the checksum would fail and the device would revert to a default, non-bricked configuration.

They write bad checksum, fake doesnt care.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#299

Post by iolsantr »

AlyssaRowan wrote: post #294
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…

These guys are apparently Glaswegian, so Scottish law. Computer Misuse Act territory, perhaps, in my (lay) opinion? They aren't the first to do malicious copy-protection. It did not go well for the previous contenders. At all.

They may be from scottland, but I bet anyplace they distribute their driver can claim jurisdiction. After all, the crime (or tort or whatever it is) is not writing the offending driver, but distributing it to an unsuspecting public.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#300

Post by jrockway »

beagle3 wrote: post #267
jrockway wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically the counterfeit devices should have never been allowed into the country. So it should be interesting how this plays out.

Are they actually counterfeit? Legally, I'd be surprised. They are re-implementing the FTDI protocol, which is completely legal. They are reusing FTDI's PID/VID, which might or might not be a violation of the USB specs or USB recommendations -- I'm not sure about that -- but I'd be really surprised if that matches the legal definition of "counterfeit" for which customs has the right (and duty) to stop imports.

I'm guessing they intended to go after devices sold as FT232s with the FTDI logo on them. If there's collateral damage, that could be a problem.

Then again, the users _did_ agree to let that happen in the clickwrap agreement, so it's still uncertain.

Either way, I'm readying the popcorn. This should be interesting.

Post reply on HN