5 ms·

Fuck FTDI. https://www.google.com/?q=ftdi+brick https://www.google.com/?q=ftdi+brick

by marshray 10y ago

yuhong 10y ago
I wonder if the counterfeit chips has this mode or not.
- kps 10y ago
  I remember this: the counterfeit does, and it works better, because the cloners followed the data sheet and not the errata. http://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/ftdi-gate-2-0/msg859741/#msg859741 http://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/ftdi-gate-2-0/...
paulgerhardt 10y ago
They apologized for that and pulled the update. When they did so, do you think they came to terms with why that line of reasoning was wrong and should be given a second chance or were their reactions purely reactionary? A huge percentage of their chips are used specifically for software integrity validation (aka 'security dongle') - that has to warp their threat modeling.
- kqr2 10y ago
  Then they decided to break it again (albeit without bricking it): http://hackaday.com/2016/02/01/ftdi-drivers-break-fake-chips-again/ http://hackaday.com/2016/02/01/ftdi-drivers-break-fake-chips... Instead of bricking fake chips, the latest FTDI drivers will inject garbage data into a circuit.
  - kabdib 10y ago
    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Whenever I see a board that uses an FTDI replacement chip, I smile. And I see a lot more of these as time goes on.
- nileshtrivedi 10y ago
  What percentage is that?
  - paulgerhardt 10y ago
    I couldn't tell you, and I apologize for being idiomatic. I found 3 out of the 30 or so chips they make with a cursory glance. So at least 10%? What I can tell you however is it's a "Typical Application" in a few of their products (FT245R, UM232R, MM232R)[1], FTDI comes up in trusted computing chip vendor discussions[2], and they go so far as to provide reference designs [3] which is enough to infer it's non-trivial. While I don't have any love lost for them, they do have a USB-to-Parallel chip which could have saved the author a lot of work [4]. [1] http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/DataSheets/ICs/DS_FT232R.pdf http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/DataSheets/ICs/DS_... [2] http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1251578 http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1251578 & https://www.bertin-it.com/brochure/WP-BadUSB_an-unpatchable-flaw-by-Bertin-IT.pdf https://www.bertin-it.com/brochure/WP-BadUSB_an-unpatchable-... [3] http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/DataSheets/ICs/DS_FT232R.pdf http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/DataSheets/ICs/DS_... [4] http://www.ftdichip.com/Products/ICs/FT245BM.htm http://www.ftdichip.com/Products/ICs/FT245BM.htm
zw123456 10y ago
Oh my goodness, quite a reaction storm! I was aware of the counterfeit issue bit I am surprised at the intensity of the reactions. As a software author I can certainly sympathize with motivation of FTDI but I also can understand the frustrations being voiced. I guess I have been lucky and not had to deal with this issue. Changing the subject a bit, it would be great if there was a standard for gpio on all pc's.
aavotins 10y ago
It's absolutely baffling. This kind of practice is never okay, be it bricking the device(that is borderline not-okay) or injecting garbage data. I, as a consumer, don't care about your IP, I care about the goods which I buy legally, using open platforms(i.e. eBay). If the manufacturer wishes to combat IP infringement, it may do so freely by doing legal action against counterfeit chip manufacturers, but affecting a device that I bought(perhaps unknowingly) is just rude.

Fuck FTDI. https://www.google.com/?q=ftdi+brick https://www.google.com/?q=ftdi+brick

yuhong 10y ago

I wonder if the counterfeit chips has this mode or not.

kps 10y ago
I remember this: the counterfeit does, and it works better, because the cloners followed the data sheet and not the errata. http://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/ftdi-gate-2-0/msg859741/#msg859741 http://www.eevblog.com/forum/microcontrollers/ftdi-gate-2-0/...

paulgerhardt 10y ago

They apologized for that and pulled the update. When they did so, do you think they came to terms with why that line of reasoning was wrong and should be given a second chance or were their reactions purely reactionary? A huge percentage of their chips are used specifically for software integrity validation (aka 'security dongle') - that has to warp their threat modeling.

kqr2 10y ago
Then they decided to break it again (albeit without bricking it): http://hackaday.com/2016/02/01/ftdi-drivers-break-fake-chips-again/ http://hackaday.com/2016/02/01/ftdi-drivers-break-fake-chips... Instead of bricking fake chips, the latest FTDI drivers will inject garbage data into a circuit.
- kabdib 10y ago
  Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Whenever I see a board that uses an FTDI replacement chip, I smile. And I see a lot more of these as time goes on.
nileshtrivedi 10y ago
What percentage is that?
- paulgerhardt 10y ago
  I couldn't tell you, and I apologize for being idiomatic. I found 3 out of the 30 or so chips they make with a cursory glance. So at least 10%? What I can tell you however is it's a "Typical Application" in a few of their products (FT245R, UM232R, MM232R)[1], FTDI comes up in trusted computing chip vendor discussions[2], and they go so far as to provide reference designs [3] which is enough to infer it's non-trivial. While I don't have any love lost for them, they do have a USB-to-Parallel chip which could have saved the author a lot of work [4]. [1] http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/DataSheets/ICs/DS_FT232R.pdf http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/DataSheets/ICs/DS_... [2] http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1251578 http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1251578 & https://www.bertin-it.com/brochure/WP-BadUSB_an-unpatchable-flaw-by-Bertin-IT.pdf https://www.bertin-it.com/brochure/WP-BadUSB_an-unpatchable-... [3] http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/DataSheets/ICs/DS_FT232R.pdf http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/DataSheets/ICs/DS_... [4] http://www.ftdichip.com/Products/ICs/FT245BM.htm http://www.ftdichip.com/Products/ICs/FT245BM.htm

zw123456 10y ago

Oh my goodness, quite a reaction storm! I was aware of the counterfeit issue bit I am surprised at the intensity of the reactions. As a software author I can certainly sympathize with motivation of FTDI but I also can understand the frustrations being voiced. I guess I have been lucky and not had to deal with this issue. Changing the subject a bit, it would be great if there was a standard for gpio on all pc's.

aavotins 10y ago

It's absolutely baffling. This kind of practice is never okay, be it bricking the device(that is borderline not-okay) or injecting garbage data. I, as a consumer, don't care about your IP, I care about the goods which I buy legally, using open platforms(i.e. eBay). If the manufacturer wishes to combat IP infringement, it may do so freely by doing legal action against counterfeit chip manufacturers, but affecting a device that I bought(perhaps unknowingly) is just rude.