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

301–310 of 315 posts

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#301

Post by duncan_bayne »

mey wrote: post #289
duncan_bayne wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Yeah, Microsoft has a pretty robust hardware lab as part of WHQL certification. I would expect there would be some off brand devices containing this chip in their lab.

Or on-brand. One of the things that makes FTDIs decision so bad is that even a reputable manufacturer could be caught out by fraud somewhere in their supply chain.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#302

Post by coderjames »

deelowe wrote: post #238
wtallis wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? The counterfeits aren't seeking USB compliance certification, they're just trying to provide 100% compatibility. Are you saying that reverse engineering and spoofing for the sake of compatibility is wrong? Or do you think that USB vendor IDs are covered by some trademark?

Seems like there's a few people who don't seem to understand the difference between copyright, trademark, criminal and civil law (op above you included). The only law broken by the counterfeiters is trademark violation for printing the FTDI logo on their chips. That's it! Everything else they did was legal. Otherwise, Intel and AMD would be bricking CPUs right now. Reverse engineering is legal. Emulation is legal. Cr…

Wouldn't flashing your hardware with another vendor's firmware, thereby distributing said firmware, be copyright infringement?

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#303

Post by Vendan »

rasz_pl wrote: post #296
Vendan wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

so, yay, go with something other then FTDI, cause other companies don't seem to have the same fascination with killing clone chips. Alas, other companies actually try to make stuff cheaper and have more features.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#304

Post by pb2au »

dalke wrote: post #269
pb2au wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A NAS box "only compatible with brand X drives" is nowhere near a NAS box that intentionally bricks non-brand X drives when attached. As a side note, are there any known cases where a vendor has released open source code that intentionally bricks a device? I'd be surprised if they were not found legally liable if the intent was spelled out so clearly.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. My "only compatible ..." left out "and does naughty things if otherwise." Perhaps you'll like this example better? https://www.google.com/patents/US4577289 "Hardware key-on-disk system for copy-protecting magnetic storage media" There are physical holes on the disk. "The test program writes the sections with a test pattern which generates a change in the pattern of magnetic domains of the mediu…

Thanks for the second example. It's a more clear use-case than the mischievous do_damage() function I had in mind.

I think intent would definitely play a role in establishing liability for damaged equipment (i.e. the user misusing the device versus the company tampering with the user's equipment).

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#305

Post by _pmf_ »

wtallis wrote: post #284
lmm wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because a car's missing its wheels doesn't make it legal to steal the bumper.

And in this case, the car's only missing the hood ornament.

> And in this case, the car's only missing the hood ornament.

A more appropriate analogy would be a car that has its chassis number filed off and written back on with black marker.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#306

Post by _pmf_ »

wtallis wrote: post #284
lmm wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because a car's missing its wheels doesn't make it legal to steal the bumper.

And in this case, the car's only missing the hood ornament.

> And in this case, the car's only missing the hood ornament.

A more appropriate analogy would be a car that has its chassis number filed off and written back on with black marker.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#307

Post by jamesbrownuhh »

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #288
jamesbrownuhh wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case the driver is executing two writes which a legitimate chip would ignore, but which the counterfeit responds to and actions. Those writes just happen to be the position in the counterfeit's EPROM where the USB PID is stored, and just before where the checksum is stored.

"just happen" In what universe can them doing a preimage attack on the checksum "just happen"?

I think you'll find I'm not in any way suggesting that it was a coincidence. It's a classic Electronic Counter Measure, exploiting the behavioural differences between the 'real' and 'fake' hardware - EXACTLY the same kind of thing you'd see being executed against pirate pay-TV smartcards, for example.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#309

Post by jessaustin »

jessaustin wrote: post #208
sigterm wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Then any parasitism is restricted to trademarks rather than trade secrets, patents, etc. Who cares about trademarks?

After giving this some more thought, it's no longer clear to me that a simple {vendor, product} id pair is even "protected" by trademark. It would be protected by contract terms, especially if at some point in the supply chain someone had signed a contract with USB-IF. However it's quite clear that no entity is entitled to commit vandalism in order to enforce contract terms for a contract to which that entity is not even a party.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#310

Post by wtallis »

coderjames wrote: post #302
deelowe wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like there's a few people who don't seem to understand the difference between copyright, trademark, criminal and civil law (op above you included). The only law broken by the counterfeiters is trademark violation for printing the FTDI logo on their chips. That's it! Everything else they did was legal. Otherwise, Intel and AMD would be bricking CPUs right now. Reverse engineering is legal. Emulation is legal. Cr…

Wouldn't flashing your hardware with another vendor's firmware, thereby distributing said firmware, be copyright infringement?

Only the distribution, and even then only if the firmware is eligible for copyright protection. Purely functional configuration data like vendor and product IDs aren't copyrightable.
Post reply on HN