Live data from Hacker News

FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

eevblog.com

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#81
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just playing devil's advocate: Do you have any evidence specifically that their driver destroyed your chip, or could there be reasonable doubt that your counterfeit chip died? For a class-action suit that a lot of people seem to be talking about, you would have to have evidence that this was what did your chip in. And getting enough people (who appear to be mostly end-users) to submit the necessary evidence could be…

> reasonable doubt Even if such existed (it does not), this standard is not applicable to a civil case, only to the criminal trials for destruction of property/malicious mischief that every single person involved should have to go through.

For counterfeit/illegal property? This seems reminiscent of the guy who bought cocaine from his dealer, found out it was cut with flour, then tried to file a police report. I'd think you've had a tough time convincing a judge that you genuinely believed the chip/board you bought from some shady seller on eBay based in China for pennies on the dollar was a legit product.

None-the-less, someone will try I'm sure. Then everyone can enjoy the $5 check they get in the mail 1 year later.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#83

That's a good lesson for people always wanting the famous brands. FTDI chips are more expensive and not better than the other ones, they need a special driver and they are subject to counterfeiting. You take a no-name one, and you have a standard stuff. It's a stupid USB to RS232, not a rocket control system, there should be no famous brand, it's the lowest of the commodities. That said, I do have an FTDI USB to seri…

Is there even such a thing as a generic usb to serial chip for Windows? I ordered some ch340g chips from China, and now an nervous about installing a driver that might be malware.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#84
post #74
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there isn't really any media coverage, other than the forum posts and HN. Also, using your automobile example, an average-joe consumer can take their car into a mechanic and have it tested for a recall/defect. The average-joe with an arduino is far more likely to toss the defective unit out, rather than try to spend a while troubleshooting a $40 board. I just don't see a class-action really able to take off. Especial…

Ok. This looks like media coverage to me: http://www.zdnet.com/ftdi-admits-to-bricking-innocent-users-... The line of argument "I, as some random anonymous person on the internet, can't see X" doesn't do much for me. Lots of people can't see lots of things, but most of the time that turns out to be about failures of knowledge or imagination, not evidence that that what they're talking about is impossible. Further, I…

Not entirely sure what your argument was here, you sort of drifted into the weeds a bit.

I think you meant to argue:

"There is one source of media coverage, although it's largely just twitter comments. And just because something is difficult to prove doesn't mean it's not provable."

Both are valid arguments.

I don't count ZDnet as a very credible source of news, and in this case, some googling seems to show they are practically the only "news site" running this story. Although, as pointed out, it's mostly just a paragraph followed by several twitter posts.

Secondly, the evidence thing is important if a case like this were to proceed. In order to sign onto the class action, you would have to prove you purchased an effected chip/board, and that this driver is what killed your product.

Two problems here:

1) You bought a counterfeit chip/board. It's unlikely any award will be levied for illegal/infringing products.

2) Users would have to show evidence they were effected. Even in the RedBull class action case that is settling now, you must prove you bought a RedBull during the time period the case covers (receipt or whatever). Again, you have a counterfeit product, which was illegal to sell/buy in the first place. Not to mention, getting average-joe to test his device, even if someone made a testing utility and freely distributed it, will be close to impossible. People who are technical and care may do it, but average-joe will assume his arduino went belly-up one day, and likely toss it in the garbage.

Let's be realistic. A handful of people in-the-know will care passionately, and do everything they can to further a claim. Several handfuls of people will care enough to do something if they believe they will get something in return (a payout). The rest will have no clue this is even a thing, and will simply throw away their "defective" device.

What FTI did was wrong. But there is no real recourse here.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#85
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't understand is why they don't make the messaging more clear. In their pre-bricking drivers, FDTI caused the counterfeits to fail in confusing and counterintuitive ways, rather than just telling the user that the chip is fake. As a user, if my device stops working randomly, my first thought is certainly not "there was a counterfeit chip in the supply chain for this hardware and the drivers must be rejectin…

" In their pre-bricking drivers, FDTI caused the counterfeits to fail in confusing and counterintuitive ways, rather than just telling the user that the chip is fake." Or maybe because the fake chip is not working in some corner case exactly as the original chip? It's probably not something deliberate. Edit: Do you really think the manufacturer should test their driver agains all fake chips and see how they behave? R…

I don't think the argument here is to test their drivers against fakes. I think the argument is against /intentionally harming/ fakes vs. throwing an error. I'm also against the "random malfunctions" feature, if that was also intentional, which it sounds like it was.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#86
post #7

There should be lawsuits. I really hope a class action gets started with people who were bitten by this. I'm serious. This kind of behavior needs to be nipped in the bud and made a massive example of, or else we will see it in the future.

We do not want to set a precedent whereby a company responds to customer feedback, and then gets hit by a huge lawsuit anyhow. That just incentivizes companies to dig their heels in, because it means there's no change in outcome between speedily responding and trying to stay the course, at which point staying the course is the only sensible choice. There's a time and a place for mercy, and giving positive feedback to…

The we can do what the US Coast Guard does about oil/fuel spills into water. You're guaranteed a fine when it's reported. However, the fine is lower if you report it yourself. Gives a clear incentive for the ship operator to report their spill rather than someone else who happens to find it.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#87

For those of you with bricked FTDI chips, there is hope on linux: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/24/44

This is a counter patch which restores the broken PID. The original proposed patch is actually a parody Linux version which bricks FTDI chips.

The real Linux patch which adds support for broken clones is here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/johan/usb-seria...

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#88
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were we to wait for the real users to notice, it would have been too late.

No, but suppose this was another scenario, such as automatic product bagger/sealers and some counterfeit part was being bricked by the original manufacturer. I doubt anyone outside of the warehouse/manufacturing industry would care, nor would anyone outside that industry have any real right to care. In the FTI situation, I'm indifferent, but I just don't like the "crowd mentality" thing where people get stirred up ab…

The company I work for uses (genuine) FTDI USB-Serial converters in our $500,000 medical instruments. I have full confidence in our Supply Chain Management people, but mistakes happen. If we were to send out a field upgrade to the instruments, as happens periodically, and some of them had the counterfeit chips, then suddenly there are patients all over the world, many in Emergency Rooms or Intensive Care, that can't get their test results because instruments are down.

This can affect many, many people not in a particular industry, depending on where the device is embedded.

As soon as I heard about this, I notified our senior design EE so he could pass the information on if necessary. This is not to be taken lightly.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#89
post #52
post #12

I disagree with the consensus. It's their driver, it operates in a specific way, perhaps responding to possible device output. Using it with non-compatible parts advertising themselves as compatible and any resulting behaviour, including unwanted, is the responsibility of the user. To play it safe, don't use any drivers with incompatible hardware.

What is the limit there, then? Would it be ok for the chip to, say, install spyware to look for my credit card data and steal money from me? That is also "unwanted behavior". I would be ok if the driver simply refused to work. But making hardware unusable on purpose is too much.

Since the "making the hardware unusable" step is just setting the PID to 0, the slope doesn't seem too slippery to me. If the manufacturers of the counterfeit chip had their own PID and Windows drivers, they wouldn't have used FTDI's. FTDI here is merely enforcing that chips which are not theirs don't use their PID.

I agree that their updated driver will probably continue to not work with these counterfeit chips, and while it shouldn't mess up the chips' functionality in Linux, fixing the PID in Linux is fairly straightforward.

In the case where the driver will continue to not work with these chips, "bricking" only refers to not resetting the PID which causes the device not to work in Linux as well.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#90
post #4

Good, destroying a device you legally purchased is unacceptable, whether you knew it was a counterfeit or not. It's not their job to police that kind of stuff. Failing to work with counterfeit devices is completely fine and would have been a much better approach than straight up bricking them.

In the US there isn't a legal way to purchase counterfeit goods. It may be different in other countries. Similar to stolen property, the person left holding the bag gets in trouble too. Edit: after actually looking up the issue instead of guessing it turns out that in most places (other than France and Italy) there isn't much at stake for the end user, and almost all of the laws are written to stop the sale or manufa…

Yea but I highly doubt anyone is going to get in trouble for buying goods they genuinely assumed were real, only to have been lied to.
Post reply on HN