4 ms·

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

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

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