Live data from Hacker News

FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

eevblog.com

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#91

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…

Does a lot more than just RS232. I believe it supports almost all serial protocols. Depending on what you're doing, it could be much more than just a simple display tty.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#92
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I know that's perfectly legal.. you are just not allowed to put the USB logo onto the device if you clone the VID from another vendor. And you seemingly can buy FTDI clones that are not marked as FTDI on the casing.

That's an interesting question. Is the VID a signal of protocol compatibility? Or a brand name? In a way it's both, but since end users almost never see the VID, I suspect a lawyer would have an easy time that under the law it's more the former than the latter, and therefore not covered under trademark and related laws.

Especially since it's the only way to be compatible as far as I know (since (VID,PID) determines the driver that will get loaded for proprietary protocols).

Also.. Can you even claim any special rights to a non-government registered trademark/brand name (one that is registered at a non-government entity - the USB Implementers Forum in this case)?

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#93
post #84
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Check other posts on this HN story; others have proven the drivers were deliberately malicious by analyzing either a USB stream or a driver disassembly (I haven't read enough to know which).

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#94
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they should reach out to affected parties and help them replace their destroyed equipment.

No equipment was destroyed by the old driver: the old driver set a word in the firmware of counterfeit devices to zero. All that needs to happen to reverse what some comment-writers are calling "bricking" is to set the word back to its original value. The new version of the driver could probably do that.

"Bricking" doesn't mean a device is completely demolished, just that it's basically been rendered into a useless lump, especially via corrupt firmware. Even a 'hard' bricked device can sometimes be recovered via JTAG.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#95
post #56

Good for them. I mean that. If they want to redesign their driver so it fails to work with non-genuine FTDI chips, go for it. Nobody will judge them. Heck if they want to show a message that informs the user they're using a fake, that's fine too. I think most people seemed to agree that bricking fakes was too far (and also could be considered illegal in some countries/areas). It also negatively impacted innocent part…

> and also could be considered illegal in some countries/areas Is there some country where it's legal to break somebody's property because you have a beef with a third party? Certainly in the US if somebody produced a virus that did this nobody would even blink at a federal prosecution. That FTDI slipped a bit of text into a document nobody reads doesn't strike me as relevant. If a piece of malware also popped up an…

> Certainly in the US if somebody produced a virus that did this nobody would even blink at a federal prosecution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk... to be specific

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#96
post #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...

Making the parody even funnier: It uses the exact same procedure to "brick" counterfeit devices as the Windows drivers did.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#97
post #89
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They don't meaningfully own the PID and there are non-counterfeit chips using that PID for compatibility purposes.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#99
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…

> "In the US there isn't a legal way to purchase counterfeit goods."

Sure, but the mechanism for combating counterfeiting is the government and law enforcement organizations, not unilateral action by the aggrieved party.

FTDI has no authority - moral or legal - to be bricking devices. This is vigilantism.

Re: FTDI removes counterfeit-bricking driver from Windows Update

#100
post #66

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…

The FTDI chips and drivers also have the ability to toggle a few extra pins. If you are making a device this can be important enough to lure you away from just being a generic USB Communications Device Class profile. (Think a 'reset' function or a 'enter firmware update mode' function.) Given that as a consumer/purchaser I have no way of knowing if I have a counterfeit chip or if the next batch produced by a manufact…

Moreover, they support many crazy baudrates and can be configured for any reasonable IO voltage.

This made me choose FTDI for my homemade everything-and-the-kitchen-sink UART dongle.

Oh, and they can blink LEDs.

Post reply on HN