3 ms·

> Yes, they should have. And tested the function. The applicable standards actually demand it. I agree. I don't want to put counterfeits in my product. Now,

by kefka 11y ago

> Yes, they should have. And tested the function. The applicable standards actually demand it. I agree. I don't want to put counterfeits in my product. Now, show me FTDI's standards documents that indicate how to identify and test for fakes. (Hint: they don't)

Tomte 11y ago
In this case it's obviously simple: you are not allowed to update drivers unless you have validated them. As far as I understand, this "behaviour" is totally deterministic and certain. You immediately notice the problem in any test system. Don't believe that safety-critical devices are allowed to install some drivers willy-nilly!
- creshal 11y ago
  > As far as I understand, this "behaviour" is totally deterministic and certain. You immediately notice the problem in any test system. FTDI does not provide any guide lines to third parties how to test whether their chips are counterfeit or not. The only way to test it is trying to use it with FTDI's Windows driver, and FTDI randomly changes the both the detection criteria, and the action done on detecting a counterfeit chip – sometimes it bricks them, sometimes it sends gibberish, you have no way of knowing beforehand. FTDI doesn't even guarantee that this behaviour is deterministic!
- jerf 11y ago
  "you are not allowed to update drivers unless you have validated them." And when QA validates them on a set of systems that happen to be legit and ships it to systems that happen to have counterfeits? You seem to be arguing in this thread with a false dilemma between EITHER we must accept counterfeiting OR we must brick the chips, but there are in between measures that are way safer. Prior art: Several versions of Windows have been able to detect if they were "genuine". Non-genuine windows did not brick their machine, or destroy themselves. Quick googling suggests it blocks you from getting updates, and pops up with links to a page on Microsoft where you could properly license it with some discount. That exact solution may not apply here, but there are options other than destroying hardware that is carrying your name. (I mean, this isn't even good for FTDI... how many customers will never find out about this and simply learn that "FTDI chips spontaneously die a lot"? Not the brand experience I'm looking for!)

by kefka 11y ago

Tomte 11y ago

In this case it's obviously simple: you are not allowed to update drivers unless you have validated them. As far as I understand, this "behaviour" is totally deterministic and certain. You immediately notice the problem in any test system. Don't believe that safety-critical devices are allowed to install some drivers willy-nilly!

creshal 11y ago
> As far as I understand, this "behaviour" is totally deterministic and certain. You immediately notice the problem in any test system. FTDI does not provide any guide lines to third parties how to test whether their chips are counterfeit or not. The only way to test it is trying to use it with FTDI's Windows driver, and FTDI randomly changes the both the detection criteria, and the action done on detecting a counterfeit chip – sometimes it bricks them, sometimes it sends gibberish, you have no way of knowing beforehand. FTDI doesn't even guarantee that this behaviour is deterministic!
jerf 11y ago
"you are not allowed to update drivers unless you have validated them." And when QA validates them on a set of systems that happen to be legit and ships it to systems that happen to have counterfeits? You seem to be arguing in this thread with a false dilemma between EITHER we must accept counterfeiting OR we must brick the chips, but there are in between measures that are way safer. Prior art: Several versions of Windows have been able to detect if they were "genuine". Non-genuine windows did not brick their machine, or destroy themselves. Quick googling suggests it blocks you from getting updates, and pops up with links to a page on Microsoft where you could properly license it with some discount. That exact solution may not apply here, but there are options other than destroying hardware that is carrying your name. (I mean, this isn't even good for FTDI... how many customers will never find out about this and simply learn that "FTDI chips spontaneously die a lot"? Not the brand experience I'm looking for!)