3 ms·
Do we have evidence FTDI was in fact making the counterfeits randomly fail on purpose, separate from this bricking thing? Hanlon's Razor is still worth thinking
by sliverstorm 12y ago
Do we have evidence FTDI was in fact making the counterfeits randomly fail on purpose, separate from this bricking thing? Hanlon's Razor is still worth thinking about.
For example I have a Prolific chip that is almost certainly a fake that only works with driver X.Y.Z, I always assumed that was because the fakers targeted that driver and made an imperfect spoof.
- bri3d 12y agoThe Prolific counterfeit protection is documented as being explicit (and not the result of an accidental incompatibility): Prolific introduced a check in later drivers which requires a specific response the fakes didn't implement. http://dreamlayers.blogspot.com/2011/10/pl-2303-code-10-error.html http://dreamlayers.blogspot.com/2011/10/pl-2303-code-10-erro... Thankfully, Prolific chose to simply prevent their drivers from starting with an easy-to-Google code, rather than causing frustrating failures or bricks. I would assume but honestly don't know that the FTDI random failure code was also intentional. All signs point to intentionality: it appeared in all drivers after a specific version, was accompanied by a change to the EULA indicating that counterfeit chips wouldn't work, and accompanied a lot of messaging from FTDI about avoiding counterfeits. I suppose someone should break out a disassembler and some USB snooping tools to check for sure.
- sliverstorm 12y agoFairly damning, thank you. Coincidentally, PL-2303 sounds like chip model I have from Prolific.