5 ms·

"bricking" doesn't seem to be the right word. FTDI is making it so that the counterfeit chips don't work with any FTDI drivers, old or new. (Per the thread, all

by tmp26 12y ago

"bricking" doesn't seem to be the right word. FTDI is making it so that the counterfeit chips don't work with any FTDI drivers, old or new. (Per the thread, all that happens is the PID is changed to a PID that no FTDI driver will recognize)

swamp40 12y ago
Hey, an FTDI employee! I'm surprised you found time away from scrubbing your Facebook page clean of all the disparaging comments. My advice: Skip breakfast tomorrow morning - you're going to be eating quite a bit of crow for lunch.
- tmp26 12y ago
  Right, I forgot, anyone who isn't part of the lynch mob is a shill. I rarely eat breakfast in the first place, sadly.
- click170 12y ago
  There is no apology sufficient for maliciously and intentionally damaging the private property of your customers. Refusing to work with counterfeit hardware is entirely appropriate, destroying it in a way that most consumers cannot recover from is in no way acceptable or defensible. You may as well have come into my home and destroyed my cookware because I bought a stove from you and the pots I had weren't your brand. It's uncalled for, inappropriate, unethical, and immoral and I'm not certain that it's not illegal. Your employer has no leg to stand on.
Dylan16807 12y ago
Or any other drivers, because it breaks it at the USB level, doesn't it?
- tmp26 12y ago
  I don't think so. There was at least one guy in the thread who reprogrammed the PID back, and the chip worked with the old FTDI drivers again, which means the USB interface was working just fine (or else how could he access it to change it back).
  - wtallis 12y ago
    Having to write custom driver-level code to repair something falls pretty well inside the accepted usage of "bricked". It's only marginally easier than just hooking up a JTAG interface.
  - bravo22 12y ago
    They change the PID to zero, which means Windows won't associate it with FTDI or any other driver. You have to jump through some manual hoops to undo it, which is something most people can't do. So for all intents and purposes it is bricked, a.k.a "locked out".
    - tmp26 12y ago
      Most HN'ers seem to agree it is OK for FTDI to prevent their own drivers from working with the fakes, right? The fact that there are no OTHER drivers that are compatible (no matter what the pid is) with the fakes isn't their problem, is it?
      - wtallis 12y ago
        Well, FTDI is leaving their vendor ID intact, and given their behavior so far it wouldn't surprise anyone if they tried to interfere with third-party drivers that enabled using non-FTDI hardware identifying itself with FTDI's vendor ID.
        tmp26 12y ago
        According to the thread the VID is RO?
        wtallis 12y ago
        So? Does anyone actually think that fact will somehow make FTDI want to be more reasonable? They'll just say that those devices being hard-coded to spoof FTDI's VID is further justification for mistreating them.
      - 12y ago
eksith 12y ago
It's not that they just won't work with their drivers, it's that it disables the device so that it's not operable without special (and costly, if they're widely deployed) intervention. The new Windows driver changes the PID to 0, and then the driver won't recognize the device (even if you edit the INF file), and you can't use the config tool. The workaround is to use a Windows XP or Linux system to change the PID back, and then don't use the new driver. Seems an awful lot like bricking to me. This is really skirting the ethical line and I'm not sure I can agree with their methods. I'm fine with them writing a driver that fails to work with counterfeit chips, but not actively disabling the chip. What if the device is attached to more expensive equipment that will also fail? We can't ensure that these chips are knowingly purchased after all. This motivation reminds me of when the U.S. and Syrian governments disseminated sabotaged munitions that explode in the weapon, killing/maiming the operator, among their opponents. The danger is that they will find their way back to friendlies.

by tmp26 12y ago

swamp40 12y ago

Hey, an FTDI employee! I'm surprised you found time away from scrubbing your Facebook page clean of all the disparaging comments. My advice: Skip breakfast tomorrow morning - you're going to be eating quite a bit of crow for lunch.

tmp26 12y ago
Right, I forgot, anyone who isn't part of the lynch mob is a shill. I rarely eat breakfast in the first place, sadly.
click170 12y ago
There is no apology sufficient for maliciously and intentionally damaging the private property of your customers. Refusing to work with counterfeit hardware is entirely appropriate, destroying it in a way that most consumers cannot recover from is in no way acceptable or defensible. You may as well have come into my home and destroyed my cookware because I bought a stove from you and the pots I had weren't your brand. It's uncalled for, inappropriate, unethical, and immoral and I'm not certain that it's not illegal. Your employer has no leg to stand on.

Dylan16807 12y ago

Or any other drivers, because it breaks it at the USB level, doesn't it?

tmp26 12y ago
I don't think so. There was at least one guy in the thread who reprogrammed the PID back, and the chip worked with the old FTDI drivers again, which means the USB interface was working just fine (or else how could he access it to change it back).
- wtallis 12y ago
  Having to write custom driver-level code to repair something falls pretty well inside the accepted usage of "bricked". It's only marginally easier than just hooking up a JTAG interface.
- bravo22 12y ago
  They change the PID to zero, which means Windows won't associate it with FTDI or any other driver. You have to jump through some manual hoops to undo it, which is something most people can't do. So for all intents and purposes it is bricked, a.k.a "locked out".
  - tmp26 12y ago
    Most HN'ers seem to agree it is OK for FTDI to prevent their own drivers from working with the fakes, right? The fact that there are no OTHER drivers that are compatible (no matter what the pid is) with the fakes isn't their problem, is it?
    - wtallis 12y ago
      Well, FTDI is leaving their vendor ID intact, and given their behavior so far it wouldn't surprise anyone if they tried to interfere with third-party drivers that enabled using non-FTDI hardware identifying itself with FTDI's vendor ID.
      - tmp26 12y ago
        According to the thread the VID is RO?
        wtallis 12y ago
        So? Does anyone actually think that fact will somehow make FTDI want to be more reasonable? They'll just say that those devices being hard-coded to spoof FTDI's VID is further justification for mistreating them.
    - 12y ago

eksith 12y ago

It's not that they just won't work with their drivers, it's that it disables the device so that it's not operable without special (and costly, if they're widely deployed) intervention. The new Windows driver changes the PID to 0, and then the driver won't recognize the device (even if you edit the INF file), and you can't use the config tool. The workaround is to use a Windows XP or Linux system to change the PID back, and then don't use the new driver. Seems an awful lot like bricking to me. This is really skirting the ethical line and I'm not sure I can agree with their methods. I'm fine with them writing a driver that fails to work with counterfeit chips, but not actively disabling the chip. What if the device is attached to more expensive equipment that will also fail? We can't ensure that these chips are knowingly purchased after all. This motivation reminds me of when the U.S. and Syrian governments disseminated sabotaged munitions that explode in the weapon, killing/maiming the operator, among their opponents. The danger is that they will find their way back to friendlies.