We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable • Hacker News Board

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#41

Post by nanolith » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:17 AM UTC

LiamPowell wrote: post #38

nanolith wrote: post #29

I could spot the clone because I'm familiar with the form factor of the FTDI IC, and I'm familiar enough with the datasheet to spot the expected passives. I'm not too keen these days with FTDI's reputation for manipulating their Windows device drivers to brick clones. So, while I'm familiar with their IC, I don't give them any more money. The next time I need a USB to serial cable, I'll bust out KiCad to build it usi…

You don't actually need your own driver, you can just use the CDC device class.

That's true. The only advantage of writing a driver in this case is if I wanted to add functions, such as a programmable level shifter.

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#42

Post by dotancohen » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:35 AM UTC

The suspect cable actually seemed to have better strain relief for wire connections and more solder on the USB A connector (transfers mechanical stress better), even though the author pointed them out as features of the authentic cable.

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#43

Post by d0ublespeak » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:36 AM UTC

This is such a nothing burger corporate ad. They purchased a cheap cable and it sucks. So let’s X-ray it and make a thought piece post about implants…

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#44

Post by amarant » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:50 AM UTC

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #21

To be fair, this story is basically an ad, but a pretty good one, and many featured HN stories are really marketing. Personally, I don’t mind marketing stuff, if it’s interesting and relevant (like this). But the fact that most comms cables, these days, have integrated chips, makes for a dangerous trust landscape. That’s something that we’ve known for quite some time. BTW: I “got it right,” but not because of the che…

I also got it right, but for the entirely wrong reasons!

I assumed the "suspicious" cable was a spy cable, and then guessed that the bigger integrated circuit was probably responsible for doing secret spy stuff, while the smaller circuit up top was all that was needed for ordinary cable work. Turns out the cables do basically the same thing (no fancy spying!), and one is just cheaper.

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#45

Post by sandworm101 » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 5:56 AM UTC

bragr wrote: post #39

quietsegfault wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh! I originally thought the bottom one was authentic because the main IC looked a lot “nicer”. Then I saw the jumble of wires to the right and rethought.

If you look closely at the bottom one, almost all the components are slightly askew, while the top one has everything at neat 90 degrees. And a smaller IC almost always means the more modern/expensive IC. Same for the other components. In fact, the top one has a much higher component count, the small components just don't show up well (look at the pads though).

Also look at the number unused/unconnected pins on the chip. The fake seems to be using a generic chip programed to act like the real thing. The extra pins are for functions it doesnt need in this use case. A professional-grade product will use a carefully-selected chip with no extra capabilities or unused pins.

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#46

Post by shagie » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 6:02 AM UTC

woleium wrote: post #26

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #21

To be fair, this story is basically an ad, but a pretty good one, and many featured HN stories are really marketing. Personally, I don’t mind marketing stuff, if it’s interesting and relevant (like this). But the fact that most comms cables, these days, have integrated chips, makes for a dangerous trust landscape. That’s something that we’ve known for quite some time. BTW: I “got it right,” but not because of the che…

My apple thunderbolt 4 cable has a computer more powerful than my firs computer in it (ARM Cortex‑M0 core running at up to 48 MHz vs a 286 at 25mhz)

That tickled a memory of a video... and I hunted it up.

Adam Savage's Tested : Look Inside Apple's $130 USB-C Cable - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD5aAd8Oy84 (1 minute in "we've been saying that our phones have more computing power than the Apollo guidance computer but I'm positive now that this cable has more computing power than the Apollo guidance computer")

That video is a look at cables (not just Apple's) with Lumafield's CT Scan.

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#47

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 6:19 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#48

Post by hakfoo » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 6:34 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #22

After they infamously started going after clones, anything branded FTDI is automatically suspicious. USB-serial adapters are not particularly special. Dozens of other manufacturers make them.

This was a huge own-goal for their brand image.

If I buy a FTDI based adapter, it might brick, and I lack the detection skill or supply chain control to be sure that it won't happen.

If I buy a CH340 or PLwhatever based adapter, that doesn't enter the calculus.

Unless I had some explicit "only FTDI can possibly do it" need, I'm going elsewhere.

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#49

Post by sandworm101 » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 6:51 AM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #42

The suspect cable actually seemed to have better strain relief for wire connections and more solder on the USB A connector (transfers mechanical stress better), even though the author pointed them out as features of the authentic cable.

That tangle is not strain relief. Those wires are buried in injection-molded plastic. Pull on them and those loops will not stretch as they are in solid plastic. What they will do is potentially result in unwanted cross-talk between wires as loops start acting as antennas.

Re: We X-Rayed a Suspicious FTDI USB Cable

#50

Post by mcdeltat » Sun, Jan 25, 2026, 6:53 AM UTC

quietsegfault wrote: post #31

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #21

To be fair, this story is basically an ad, but a pretty good one, and many featured HN stories are really marketing. Personally, I don’t mind marketing stuff, if it’s interesting and relevant (like this). But the fact that most comms cables, these days, have integrated chips, makes for a dangerous trust landscape. That’s something that we’ve known for quite some time. BTW: I “got it right,” but not because of the che…

Huh! I originally thought the bottom one was authentic because the main IC looked a lot “nicer”. Then I saw the jumble of wires to the right and rethought.

If you look at enough cheapo/handmade circuit boards you'll notice they often look like the bottom one. Cramped, untidy, or otherwise odd trace layout, poor part placement, poor soldering. The top one - although looking less space efficient because there's more going on - is layed out better. The design just flows in a way amateur designs don't.