FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232??

[Fungus]

Didn't you watch the video? The bit where Dave says, "Even if you try your best to make sure the chips are genuine, you can never be sure because the supply chains have too many links in them..."

Where is that video?

[armandas]

Did you grasp the concept by now that the FTDI using world (genuine or otherwise) does not 100% rely on windoze drivers? Excellent! Because that way when you resort to the broken argument of "but but windows ftdi drivers" again, we can simply reply "linux ftdi drivers" as shorthand notation for "dear Rufus, your driver argument is a load of horse droppings". That will save some time.

Clever argument, except this whole discussion is based on windows drivers. Those same drivers which FTDI wrote and which the counterfeiters are basing their business model on. Or was it linux drivers that bricked the chips?

[Rufus]

So you can carry on stealing FTDI drivers - yay!

Spot the lack of FTDI copyright in the linux drivers.

Did craigh mention Linux at all?

Yes I know - if you try to use unlicensed software on a windows box it subsequently screws up on a Linux box, a screw up which has already been fixed with a driver update - like I said before cry me a river. If you don't want shit like that happening buy USB devices which comply with USB specifications.

[Nerull]

My 2 cents.

I think the general consensus here is that FTDI are in their right to stop the non-genuine chips working with their driver and the way they should do that is by simply refusing to work with the non-genuine chips.

<snip>

Good to see at least some people are thinking straight here. FTDI have no obligations to support fake chips and if you agree with that, then what is the difference "bricking" the fake chip and simply not recognising it at the driver level?

Based on the code that was posted here, the PID is overwritten for all chips, but it only sticks on the fake ones. Is FTDI to blame here? Really? You get scammed and you blame the manufacturer for it...

By the way, I have worked at the company who managed to buy a large quantity of fake FTDI chips. Does anyone think it would have been good for business if the drivers were shouting "Your FTDI device is not genuine!" to the customer's face? We were just glad we found it out at the testing stage and were able to get the money back. The distributor, on the other hand, probably lost quite a bit of money.

Do you think its better for business if a high percentage of your devices simply fail out of the box for no apparent reason?

[EEVblog]

Wafer fabs are expensive. I wonder why western/russian governments that rely on these sensitive chips do not consider them as 'strategic' assets and invest in fabs like they would in a power plant or any other basic infrastructure?

The NSA has it's own wafer fab.

[MyElectronsFellOut]

The NSA has it's own wafer fab.

Scary to think what NSA has access to when it can beat Yahoo back to your router.....

[armandas]

Do you think its better for business if a high percentage of your devices simply fail out of the box for no apparent reason?

A recall would be due in either case. I wouldn't blame FTDI for it though.

[eabi]

Good to see at least some people are thinking straight here. FTDI have no obligations to support fake chips and if you agree with that, then what is the difference "bricking" the fake chip and simply not recognising it at the driver level?

Based on the code that was posted here, the PID is overwritten for all chips, but it only sticks on the fake ones. Is FTDI to blame here? Really? You get scammed and you blame the manufacturer for it...

By the way, I have worked at the company who managed to buy a large quantity of fake FTDI chips. Does anyone think it would have been good for business if the drivers were shouting "Your FTDI device is not genuine!" to the customer's face? We were just glad we found it out at the testing stage and were able to get the money back. The distributor, on the other hand, probably lost quite a bit of money.

FTDI has obligations to support customers. It doesn't matter if customer got some "not genuine" chip from some vendor.
Yes, driver may show some Warning window, and should operate properly after that. At this point FTDI could ask end-user to claim the manufacturer the board is suspicious. Also FTDI could kindly ask end user to report the issue to FTDI itself.

It is NOT the end user failed when got counterfeit part, it is FTDI failed to allow some supply chain to violate fair play.

Brand protection here is not kicking end user off the market. It is about to stop using "bad" parts in manufacturing.

[nixfu]

For those considering moving to using Prolific, keep in mind they did THE SAME THING YEARS AGO and used their windows drivers to hurt any end users who had unknowingly purchased devices containing fake prolific chips as well.  Why do these stupid companies think hurting the END USER is the solution to what is obviously a international commerce, patent, trademark issue?!

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/note-how-to-not-get-scammed-with-prolific-(pl2303)-usb-serial-adapters/

Why I find humorous about this FTDI thing, is the above is why I originally switched from preferring Prolific to strictly only using FTDI whenever possible for the last few years.  I guess now I won't use either one, because they both have now shown idiocy.

[jesuscf]

Is it just me who was getting gateway errors trying to access eevblog.com for the last 5 days?  Anyhow, I don't want to miss the opportunity to participate in this historic thread:

Dammit FTDI! I have been recommending and using your products for over 10 years.  So far this year I bought about 1000 FT230XS and over 600 FT232RL, all originals from DigiKey.  My next PCB version is very unlikely to include your ICs anymore.

Jesus

[sweesiong78]

The NSA has it's own wafer fab.

very interesting.... although with 52 'trusted' suppliers I wonder how secure the chain really is

http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/SystemsEngineering/Documents/Past%20Meetings/06-20-12%20Division%20Meeting/04%20-%20Trusted%20Foundry%20Program,%20Ortiz,%20NDIA%20SE%20Talk%2020120620%20cjo2.pdf

[Simon]

FTDI think their poor chip is so innovative and precious, yea you bet, they must be raking in money on these chips bit time:

FTDI prices: http://www.findchips.com/search/FT232RL

ATmega16u2 with USB port, serial port and a who MCU: http://www.findchips.com/search/atmega16u2

looks like they are so innovative the FT232RL was the last good part they made....... they have staked everything on it and protect it so fiercely

[craigh]

So you can carry on stealing FTDI drivers - yay!

The drivers I used to revert to were old FTDI drivers.

I did purchase the USB/Serial converters quite innocently, the chips looked genuine to me.  I couldn't figure out why they converter boards 'died', though.  I didn't know the chips were fake until now.

I suppose I could design and build my own USB/Serial converter boards using FTDI chips.  But how I would know if the parts I purchase are real.  Counterfeit parts still do slip into the supply chain of legitimate distributors such as Mouser, DigiKey, Element14, etc. 

Let me give a real-life example.  I had a client that asked me to look into why a product of theirs was failing final production testing.  Turned out to be a run-of-the-mill quad opamp.  The whole reel they were using was fake.  I tested a few parts and they didn't behave like a proper opamp should.  When the bad parts were replaced with parts from another reel, the product passed final test with no problems.  The fake parts looked legit; logo, date codes, etc. looked right.  I checked with the company's purchaser and they assured me the reel came from a reputable supplier, who also supplied the good reel (from the same order I believe).  I was later told that this wasn't the first time something like this had happened.

I believe we all want to support legitimate manufacturers, but until counterfeit parts can be easily spotted before being put into products, we're going to be stuck with them.  I don't know what the solution will be...

[sunnyhighway]

So you can carry on stealing FTDI drivers - yay!

Since when is using free of charge software outside it's license agreement called stealing?


ps: If anyone cares to know what I was thinking when I read the quoted text above click here

[steves]

Is there any inherent reason why a USB to serial chip needs to have firmware that can be modified via USB connection?

[Simon]

Is there any inherent reason why a USB to serial chip needs to have firmware that can be modified via USB connection?

Can the FTDI chips have their firmware changed over USB ? the fakes are probably the ones that can be programmed as they are made with different technology.

[firewalker]

Is there any inherent reason why a USB to serial chip needs to have firmware that can be modified via USB connection?

For companies using their own VID:PID and their own string identifier to their product.

Alexander.

[Monkeh]

FTDI think their poor chip is so innovative and precious, yea you bet, they must be raking in money on these chips bit time:

FTDI prices: http://www.findchips.com/search/FT232RL

ATmega16u2 with USB port, serial port and a who MCU: http://www.findchips.com/search/atmega16u2

looks like they are so innovative the FT232RL was the last good part they made....... they have staked everything on it and protect it so fiercely

http://www.findchips.com/search/FT231X

Thank you, come again.

Is there any inherent reason why a USB to serial chip needs to have firmware that can be modified via USB connection?

Can the FTDI chips have their firmware changed over USB ? the fakes are probably the ones that can be programmed as they are made with different technology.

Please take the time to read the datasheet. Or the thread..

[all_repair]

For those considering moving to using Prolific, keep in mind they did THE SAME THING YEARS AGO and used their windows drivers to hurt any end users who had unknowingly purchased devices containing fake prolific chips as well.  Why do these stupid companies think hurting the END USER is the solution to what is obviously a international commerce, patent, trademark issue?!

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/note-how-to-not-get-scammed-with-prolific-(pl2303)-usb-serial-adapters/

Why I find humorous about this FTDI thing, is the above is why I originally switched from preferring Prolific to strictly only using FTDI whenever possible for the last few years.  I guess now I won't use either one, because they both have now shown idiocy.

Prolific did not do the same thing.  They did, and maybe still do, what is considered acceptable: stop their drivers working with clones.  Not only that they educate people on their web site of the situations.  But people still think that is a hassle to get prolific due to the uncertainty.  That was the biggest reason that gave FTDI a brand advantage and price premium.  People could just buy FTDI at ease.  My reason of buying FTDI was thinking FTDI had a much control of their supply chain.  Since they could not control their supply chain well,  and could not behave in a responsible manner to the end users, their price premium is gone.  It is more hassle,  more painful and much more uncertain (the last memo from their CEO)  to buy FTDI chips over any other non-FTDI.  My FTDI cables are still working well, but it shall always be a concern that they maybe bricked or stopped working one day.  Many manufacturers using FTDI, but did not personally collected their chips hot from the factory oven, are having these concerns now and into the future, just when FTDI is going to pull the next trigger and the next trigger.  And will these triggers hit them?

[TubiCal]

Hi Forum,

this is my first post, just registered, as i want to be take part in this thing, let´s see what that #FTDIGate will become

Thanx everyone in here for making this as huge as it is now, and let us - the enduser, the engineers, the designer, the coders -
make this so big that FTDI will be forced to just revert the whole thing.

It can not be that a company will just ruin a product that they do not own, and do not have any relationship on it, besides that this product has a USB plug on it and communicate with a computer via an (fake)FTDI-chip.
Even worse, when the enduser can not do anything about it, as he does *not* know that there are fake FTDI chips out there anyway, anyhow....!

Thanx FTDI for beeing that clever!!

still can´t believe this,
TubiCal

[dannyf]

FTDI have no obligations to support fake chips and if you agree with that,

I agree with that.

then what is the difference "bricking" the fake chip and simply not recognising it at the driver level?

"bricking" a chip that FTDI does not own, or does not have its owner's consent to brick, is quite different from not working with that chip.

If I had one of those bricked chips, I would talk to some of the nastiest lawyers and sue anyone within 1000 miles of this thing, including FTDI and Microsoft.

[Chasm]

What I really would like to know if FTDI released new OEM drivers to their corporate customers. The ones with changed VID and PID.

If they did, and if disassembly shows that they also contain the "brick" feature FTDI played Russian Roulette with a shotgun.

[Bud]

...and IBM has recently thrown in the towel as well.

Oh, they did ?

 

[janengelbrecht]

Davis video blog about this subject says it all.  To brick peoples product must be illegal though - hope a court will follow up on the issue

[ARGLaser]

Time to switch to the silicon labs CP2104/2102.