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

41–50 of 315 posts

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#41

Post by Zigurd »

snarfy wrote: post #33
dmitrygr wrote: post #5

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

From their website: >The licence only allows use of the Software with, and the Software will only work with Genuine FTDI Components (as defined in the Licence Terms). Use of the Software as a driver for a component that is not a Genuine FTDI Component MAY IRRETRIEVABLY DAMAGE THAT COMPONENT. IANAL but I don't believe this disclaimer can possibly be valid. Personal property rights cannot be waived away with a disclaim…

It amounts to an admission they are bricking clones on purpose.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#42

Post by dsl »

snarfy wrote: post #33
dmitrygr wrote: post #5

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

From their website: >The licence only allows use of the Software with, and the Software will only work with Genuine FTDI Components (as defined in the Licence Terms). Use of the Software as a driver for a component that is not a Genuine FTDI Component MAY IRRETRIEVABLY DAMAGE THAT COMPONENT. IANAL but I don't believe this disclaimer can possibly be valid. Personal property rights cannot be waived away with a disclaim…

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 a legitimate instruction.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#43

Post by jjoonathan »

Does anyone know of good FTDI alternatives? Are there any clone makers that are relatively legit (i.e. they put their actual brand name on the chip, they support drivers, etc)? At $4.50 a pop for bog-standard bit-banging in a day and age where you can get ARM M4 SoCs for $2.75 a pop (n=1 prices) I would think FTDI would have more above-the-table competition than they do.

Is the subterfuge required for illegitimate cloning really that much easier than getting a website, writing docs, and supporting drivers?!

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#44

Post by sliverstorm »

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 consumer's drive for the lowest price that creates the market for these illicit goods, so they are not blameless. Additionally, illicit supply chains are hard to attack and often times the consumer "really should have known better", so one of the ways to attack that supply chain is by slapping the hand of the consumer who patronized it, whether or not they actually meant to buy stolen goods.

It's hard to deal with the "Well it was cheap and he was shady but I just didn't ask too many questions" purchases; responsibility is very diffuse, with everyone doing their best to avoid responsibility.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#46

Post by smilekzs »

jjoonathan wrote: post #43

Does anyone know of good FTDI alternatives? Are there any clone makers that are relatively legit (i.e. they put their actual brand name on the chip, they support drivers, etc)? At $4.50 a pop for bog-standard bit-banging in a day and age where you can get ARM M4 SoCs for $2.75 a pop (n=1 prices) I would think FTDI would have more above-the-table competition than they do. Is the subterfuge required for illegitimate cl…

Didn't see your post when I was posting mine, but anyway -- CP210x.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#47

Post by ja27 »

DannyBee wrote: post #31
Zigurd wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why this is voted down. The US has some severe laws against vandalizing computing devices and against unauthorized access. Why wouldn't these laws apply here?

There are a variety of laws that would apply here, and doing what they did, if done intentionally, is almost certainly cause for civil liability. They are not allowed self-help in the form of destroying other pieces of hardware. If they have a problem with counterfeit chips, the solution is customs/legal process/etc If they aren't happy with what that buys them, they should be pushing for legal change.

It's quite possibly a violation of U.S. Code 1030(a)(5)(A), a federal felony:

(5) (A) [Whoever] knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;

Now "protected computer" and the [ab]use of the Interstate Commerce Clause mean that the device with the FTDI would likely need to be connected to a network for this to apply. Plus I think they still need to show $5,000+ in damage, but it wouldn't be hard to reach that if the driver wrecked a prototype and delayed a product.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#48

Post by 13 »

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…

No, that's not the case here. Fake FTDI chips are going to be used in absolutely everything, products from Alibaba to name brand professional stuff. It's pretty much guaranteed not everybody has complete control of their semiconductor supply chain, and even if they do there's an incentive for all companies to cut costs where they can. A consumer buying a product doesn't make an informed decision about the type of serial interface in their devices, much less whether it's genuine or not. There's an expectation that the product will work and that falls on the manufacturer, who might not even be responsible either.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#49

Post by Dylan16807 »

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…

But a stolen good is entirely different from a lookalike good.

These chips didn't fall off the back of a truck. They were in most cases legitimately manufactured and sold to an informal spec.

Re: FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232s

#50

Post by ctz »

dsl wrote: post #42
snarfy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their website: >The licence only allows use of the Software with, and the Software will only work with Genuine FTDI Components (as defined in the Licence Terms). Use of the Software as a driver for a component that is not a Genuine FTDI Component MAY IRRETRIEVABLY DAMAGE THAT COMPONENT. IANAL but I don't believe this disclaimer can possibly be valid. Personal property rights cannot be waived away with a disclaim…

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…

You should look up the word 'intent' in law.
Post reply on HN