Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

arstechnica.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#51

Post by edc117 »

jacobolus wrote: post #35
paulgb wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that a lot of "brands" on Amazon, especially for cheap electronics, seem to only exist on Amazon. I assume people are buying things in bulk from Alibaba or similar and sticking their label on it.

Not necessarily. Here’s a fascinating story about one Amazon retailer: http://www.fastcompany.com/3021229/chaim-pikarski-the-amazon...

This is kinda cool. At first I thought 'ugh, bottom feeder, must be cheap knockoff crap', but the more I read about the business the more respect I got for how he runs it. The fast feedback loop, the quick product iteration...he's going to eat more than one big name's margins. Thanks for sharing.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#52

Post by Someone1234 »

dawnbreez wrote: post #45

I'm not an electrical engineer, but wiring something other than ground to the ground pin is...well, I suspect it's straight-up malicious, although why you'd want to do something like this, I don't know.

> I suspect it's straight-up malicious

Hanlon's razor: "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice."

It doesn't even make rational sense for a business creating cables to intentionally damage equipment. They'd just get sued, tons of bad PR/reviews, and gain nothing obvious.

More likely they just had production line issues, lack of QA, and poor training for staff. Resulted in malfunctioning equipment being sold. Most people that build cables don't understand how the cable works, they just follow instructions they're given (e.g. "red cable into position #1, white/black cable into #2, yellow into #3," etc).

Ultimately this might just be one incorrectly assembled cable; but the issue here is that they don't QA cables before they leave the shop. Electrical testing on most cables is quick, inexpensive, and automatable. They likely saved a few cent per cable by skipping it, but in the cable industry that might be significant savings.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#53

Post by mikeash »

Arnt wrote: post #41
mikeash wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What gives is that this was not actually a type C cable, but an evil, broken cable mislabeled as a USB-C cable.

Right... but two questions stick their head up and want answers: First, USB outlets are supposed to have a bit of a fuse. Why was this upfuckage so spectacular? Second, why do USB type C ports/cables have 24 pins if there are only 4 wires? I can understand having a couple of extra ones for type/orientation detection and a doubling to support reversion, but 24 is a lot.

I don't know exactly why these ports aren't protected, but as for your second question, why assume there are only four wires, given there are a lot more pins? Wikipedia has a full pinout and wiring list and you can see there's a lot more going on than that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_Type-C#Connector_pinouts_a...

USB-C is not merely a new connector for the old USB 2.0, but includes a lot more. It is backwards compatible, but goes well beyond that.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#54

Post by Bjartr »

greggman wrote: post #40
sharpneli wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not a slight fezz-up. It was miswiring in a power cable. It's like electrician wiring the live pin into ground pin and then wondering why one gets electrocuted by so many devices. No specification can defend against a hostile, or sufficiently incompetent, implementer.

Is that really true? (I have no idea just asking). Is there nothing you could put in the device to prevent bad inputs from damaging the internals? (for some definition of bad) Is it a question of impossibility? Or cost? Or bulk? or something else?

I thttp://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/ttp://www.fiftythree.o... it's a matter of foreseeing the potential failure modes and correctly deciding which ones are so remote as to be not worth the cost and complexity to protect against. For instance, I don't think there's a consumer device out there that wouldn't fry if connected directly to mains AC through any peripheral port at all. But that doesn't stop someone from making a cable that connects AC to USB and saying it's a fast charge cable on Amazon. That's a more extreme case than this, but only because it's more obvious what the flaw in the cable is.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#55

Post by nemik »

sharpneli wrote: post #14
josteink wrote: post #10

Does anyone else find it concerning that our new and best technology is so fragile that even the slightest fezz-up in what should be a passive signal-cable can cause our otherwise state of the art equipment to fry itself? Is reliability, durability and robustness nowhere to be found in any single spec for our new standards?

It was not a slight fezz-up. It was miswiring in a power cable. It's like electrician wiring the live pin into ground pin and then wondering why one gets electrocuted by so many devices. No specification can defend against a hostile, or sufficiently incompetent, implementer.

It's what fuses and diodes are used for. You know how when you write a program you never trust user-input? This should be the same thing, but physically. A well-designed USB port wouldn't fry the computer like it did.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#56

Post by TeMPOraL »

Someone1234 wrote: post #52
dawnbreez wrote: post #45

I'm not an electrical engineer, but wiring something other than ground to the ground pin is...well, I suspect it's straight-up malicious, although why you'd want to do something like this, I don't know.

> I suspect it's straight-up malicious Hanlon's razor: "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice." It doesn't even make rational sense for a business creating cables to intentionally damage equipment. They'd just get sued, tons of bad PR/reviews, and gain nothing obvious. More likely they just had production line issues, lack of QA, and poor training for staff. Resulted in malfunctioning equipment being sold.…

Given all the other problems with this cable, it seems to be yet another case of an "entrepreneur" trying to make a quick buck, except this one happened to (probably accidentally) add destruction to fraud.

I still wonder, what's in the minds of people who sell this kind of crap, and where did their conscience go? I wish we'd have a reliable way of getting rid of such vendors.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#58

Post by sharpneli »

nemik wrote: post #55
sharpneli wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was not a slight fezz-up. It was miswiring in a power cable. It's like electrician wiring the live pin into ground pin and then wondering why one gets electrocuted by so many devices. No specification can defend against a hostile, or sufficiently incompetent, implementer.

It's what fuses and diodes are used for. You know how when you write a program you never trust user-input? This should be the same thing, but physically. A well-designed USB port wouldn't fry the computer like it did.

There is a limit on how much user malice should be tolerated vs the cost (additional components used, larger devices etc etc) to implement all of that. Especially as someone can always just rip the device open and circumvent all that causing breakage. How many stops there should be versus malicious usage?

USB devices can handle things like the ground and voltage being shorted, as that can happen in normal use through wear and tear. However the flip of ground and voltage lines can only happen if it is done intentionally. As an example either by malicious user or by a factory just randomly mashing wires together and then lying to the customers that they're selling an USB cable.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#59

Post by Lan »

hagope wrote: post #22

I find my micro USB type-B connectors all eventually fail, and I've been combing through Amazon to find a reliable cable manufacturer, any suggestions?

Look for cables made by Volutz. I had never heard of the company before I tried them, but their cables are incredibly durable. They're also 24/20 AWG and I've never seen USB cables that thick sold by anyone else.

Re: Google engineer finds USB Type-C cable that’s so bad it fried his Chromebook

#60

Post by Dylan16807 »

Bjartr wrote: post #54
greggman wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really true? (I have no idea just asking). Is there nothing you could put in the device to prevent bad inputs from damaging the internals? (for some definition of bad) Is it a question of impossibility? Or cost? Or bulk? or something else?

I t http://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/ttp://www.fiftythree.o... it's a matter of foreseeing the potential failure modes and correctly deciding which ones are so remote as to be not worth the cost and complexity to protect against. For instance, I don't think there's a consumer device out there that wouldn't fry if connected directly to mains AC through any peripheral port at all. But that doesn't stop someone fro…

A cable with a mains plug at one end and USB on the other is obviously wrong, though.

Mains power is legitimately difficult to deal with. Power that's five volts out of spec is not.

Post reply on HN