FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232??

[nitro2k01]

#serialkiller or even #ftdiserialkiller would have been more amusing hashtags.

As posted by someone previously in the thread:

[Bud]

A smoking Arduino in his right hand would be good to add some drama .

[tbbw]

I wonder how many thousands of Arduninos will be destroyed....

Two down for me luckely they can be unbricked found this kind sir on twitter with the fix:
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/525527784026685440

Nice.

I havent plugged mine in in over a week. If I plug it in now, it should be fine right?

I was supposed to be doing development with it all last week. Glad those plans fell through!

If you had drivers already in your windows box disable driver updates atleast until we see what move FTDI does next.
They have recalled the driver from ms update so the ones that does not already have it installed should not get it as i understand it.
Personaly i'm just doing all of my stuff on my linux box and the windows box got an usb ban for now atleast until i see if FTDI laid off the pipe.

Edit: gonna leave this tweet here since it might help some ppl
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/526043019384852480

[Simon]

The pre 2.12 drivers did not have an EULA or limitations as far as I know

They did but it was hidden in the .INF files - I had a look through a few old sets of drivers and the "only for use with FTDI parts" condiiton has been in there for quite a few years

So in other words the user did not hafto agree to the eula it was a silent install with no prompt at all?
I can hardly say that is proof of the users consent on the eula at all if thats the case.

This is where the law of it would seem many countries falls down. By using something you  are agreeing to stuff that you never knew about. It's like the new rules on in web browsers, total waste of time because as usual the law is not tight enough to stop nasty companies from exploiting loop holes to get their way. Now you have to accept use of cookies, so what have they done ? they create a HUGE banner on top or on the bottom of the website that renders using it useless or very annoying with only the option of accepting cookies on it, result, we are all now legally consenting to use cookies we don't actually agree to because we were forced to. If the website can function without cookies then a company has no (moral) right to force them on users. I have fast learnt that as consumers we have virtually no rights. In the Uk trading standards has been whittled down to a point it's pointless and as a member of the public I am refused the ability to contact them. I have to phone a charity that gives consumer advice and if they think it's a valid cause then they listen to you because they know that if trading standards will listen to them they get paid and that helps run the charity. these days you can't even get through to their phone line.

[station240]

Just wait till the chinese make their clone ignore any attempt to set the PID to 0.

It's one thing to brick a hardware device by accident, doing it on purpose though leaves the company open to things like getting changed with things like software hacking (cracking) or unauthorised access to a computer (the fake FTDI chip could count as a separate computer). Pretty moronic to even consider this sort of thing, much less give it to Microsoft to distribute as a legit driver update.

Capitalism at it's worst here, "the screw you jack, I'm ok" approach. If the chinese can make a FTDI clone cheaper then the legit version, why can't FTDI just lower their prices or design a new version that's cheaper to make ?

[codeboy2k]

What surprises me the most is the number of people online justifying the actions of FTDI, like fanboys..

It really make me wonder why so many consumers love to protect corporate interests, instead of the consumer interest.

No one deserves to have their devices bricked because FTDI is in a battle with other corporation that clone their devices.

[Simon]

Capitalism at it's worst here, "the screw you jack, I'm ok" approach. If the chinese can make a FTDI clone cheaper then the legit version, why can't FTDI just lower their prices or design a new version that's cheaper to make ?

seconded, as I said before this sounds more like a plan dreamt up with a nearly empty bottle of scotch in hand than one that came out of a sound board meeting. These chips are not the only ones that do this function, they are nothing special these days, if FTDI needs to damage a small amount of consumers in a petty attempt to get at counterfeiters that have already "hit and run" with the money it makes you wonder why these chip are so important to them considering the more advanced range of chips they offer. Leaves me not inclined to invest in any of their products, they are either a nasty company or they are about* to go under.......

*taking into consideration that anything in a serious product needs years of support

[nitro2k01]

What surprises me the most is the number of people online justifying the actions of FTDI, like fanboys..

It really make me wonder why so many consumers love to protect corporate interests, instead of the consumer interest.

No one deserves to have their devices bricked because FTDI is in a battle with other corporation that clone their devices.

I don't condone what FTDI did. That said, in the name consumer interest, it would be interesting to see an honest comparison between a genuine ft232 and a clone. Is the clone more likely to drop bytes? Can it do all baud rates that the genuine chip can? Does it jitter a lot at higher baud rates? Will it correctly invert any of the RS232 signals as specified in the EEPROM configuration. Are all features, such as the bitbang mode, there? Does it have the same functionality on it's IO pins, such as the ability to output an auxiliary 6/12/24/48 Mhz clock?

Those are questions I'd much rather see answered out of my own personal "consumer interest". Ie, will getting a clone device matter to me based on the chip's actual quality, rather than any clumsy attempts from FTDI's side to sabotage my use of the chip?

[German_EE]

The python script at https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/525527784026685440 works but people like me who are new to Linux may have some problems running it. The following notes may help:

1) You need Python installed on your system  , you can check that it's there by typing 'python' in a terminal window. Type control-d to exit.

2) You need the python USB drivers installed on your system. In Ubuntu and Linux Mint the file is called python-usb and can be installed via Synaptic.

3) Right click on the downloaded Python file and under 'Properties' then 'Permissions' click on 'allow executing the file as a program'.

4) Plug the device in first then in a terminal window go to the directory where the python script is held and type 'python detect_ftdi_clone.py' and follow the program prompts.

[alex.forencich]

Well, there is a difference between a clone and a counterfeit.  A clone is not advertised as being an FTDI chip, only FTDI compatible.  It speaks the same protocol and necessarily has the same VID and PID (they are an aspect of the protocol) but it is not physically marked as an FTDI chip.  A counterfeit is a clone that has been re-marked as an FTDI chip.  It is not legal for them to intentionally brick clones.  It is also likely not legal for them to brick counterfeits

I'll would add one category :
- Clone (is also a counterfeit): chip copied 1:1 Infringes FTDI IP, but  it's not legal for FTDI to brick it voluntarily.
- Counterfeit : compatible marked with FTDI logo ( infringes the logo only)
- Compatible : protocol wise compatible to FTDI. Legal to produce, sell, but against the EULA to use with the official windows driver (probably not illegal in most countries)

I wouldn't personally call a 'clone' a counterfeit.  I think a clone would be a part that is designed independently to be both protocol and pin compatible - basically a functional equivalent, but not a 1:1 copy as the implementation could be different.  A compatible part implies pin compatible or protocol compatible, but not necessarily both.  For example, FTDI protocol compatible firmware running on a microcontroller that has a different pinout.  Or a pinout compatible chip that uses the CDC protocol.  I think all of the current counterfeit chips are likely independent reimplementations that are pin compatible and more or less protocol compatible, but they have then been rebranded by a 3rd party with the FTDI logo and part number. 

[SydB]

If the chinese can make a FTDI clone cheaper then the legit version, why can't FTDI just lower their prices or design a new version that's cheaper to make ?

The counterfeiters/cloners may be copying the device. FTDI may have done extra design work. Designers (and all the overheads associated e.g. licenses) need paying. If the cloners are doing significant design work then maybe the designs are not being tested as rigorously as FTDI and are not as robust. Maybe the manufacturing is not as good. Maybe they do not even have a specification. Also, FTDI are paying for the driver development, advertising, reputation and all the support which the cloners are exploiting.

Design and project costs are often calculated using future sales predictions such that it may be theoretically possible that FTDI have not yet made any money on this part. Unlikely, but I am trying to make the difference between cost of innovation vs copying clear.

More details here: http://zeptobars.ru/en/read/FTDI-FT232RL-real-vs-fake-supereal

Regarding another comment that an equivalent part has an identical VID but you do not call it a counterfeit, what do you think the acronym means? Isn't using FTDI's VID, without FTDI's permission, fraudulent or maybe you are suggesting that the body responsible for faking the FTDI markings on the package are also changing the VID?

[Ferroto]

Can never be too safe nowadays.

[Simon]

Can never be too safe nowadays.

hahahahaha  love it, the USB condom......... took me a moment to get......

[rew]

Hey... 

Why not put a little code in the Linux driver: Write the PID value to 0xDEAD and then only work with the chips that accept the new PID? 

[rew]

Are all features, such as the bitbang mode, there?

The fakes do bitbang, but not entirely accurate. Somehow there is a difference between the real ones and the fake ones. I haven't had the time to investigate. (i.e. by creating something that will provide a known sample signal).
(I THINK the output channel works just fine, but that here are differences in the synchronous sampling of the input side).

[eevFinn]

I now have 7 fake chips maybe more.
My son came up with a solution to win7 driver problem.

http://arduinotronics.blogspot.dk/2014/10/does-windows-ftdi-update-brick-your.html

It does not solve the problems in winXP.
I can not use this installation method on the winXP machine.

Dear FTDI come up with a solution for reprogramming my fake chips.
I still have to use my boards in winXP.
Should I build a new interface based on Atmel Atmega8U2 or ATmega16U2.
It will definitely mean goodbye to FTDI.
Unfortunately, I am probably not large enough to move on the FTDIs attitude.

I have previously written the following on hackaday.

http://hackaday.com/2014/02/19/ft232rl-real-or-fake/#comment-1947068

Finn Johansen says:
October 3, 2014 at 8:19 am

I’m having trouble with 5 units Arduino Duemilanove and a USB to serial converter. All purchased on Ebay.

FTDI FT232RL

date code
1116-C GN051461 Works
1211-C GN410601 Works

1213-C CN480661 Does not work
1213-C CN480661 Does not work
1403-C GN480661 Does not work
1403-C GN480661 Does not work
1403-C GN480661 Does not work
1403-C GN480661 Does not work
1403-C GN480661 Does not work

It seems that there is no driver solution but that the chips must be replaced.

[berniwa]

@eevFinn + others
Any chance anyone could send me one or two bricked devices?
I'd really like to give it a try to restore them, but I have windows update disabled ;-)
My plan is to build a kernel driver for PC or Raspberry (might be easier as the USB core is always the same),
that allows reprogramming the damn things.

Greets
Berni

[linux-works]

simply buy almost any ftdi serial board from amazon.  you'll likely get a fake you can 'play with'.

[berniwa]

Hey,

Just intentionally bricked one of my original FTDI device ;-)
Let's hope it works out as I have in mind xD - otherwhise I have 10€ worth of original garbage...

Greets
Berni

[Stonent]

All we need is a picture of someone's grandma laying on the floor in a coma with a USB cable connected to her heart monitor or insulin pump with an new hardware found driver screen on the computer  and then USB Device not recognized.

[Simon]

All we need is a picture of someone's grandma laying on the floor in a coma with a USB cable connected to her heart monitor or insulin pump with an new hardware found driver screen on the computer  and then USB Device not recognized.

You trying to scare FTDI or something ? hopefully if anyone down there has a heart attack they get to hospital to find all the equipment just went down.

[nctnico]

All we need is a picture of someone's grandma laying on the floor in a coma with a USB cable connected to her heart monitor or insulin pump with an new hardware found driver screen on the computer  and then USB Device not recognized.

You trying to scare FTDI or something ? hopefully if anyone down there has a heart attack they get to hospital to find all the equipment just went down.

I'm pretty sure someone within the FTDI buildings went to the IT department complaining their USB cable stopped working after a driver update 

[berniwa]

Hey,

as everybody is just ranting over their bricked devices and nobody isn't really doing anything aginst it, I gave it a try.

As I said, I don't have any bricked FT232 devices here, so I "bricked" one of my FT-X intentionally by setting the PID to 0 (that's the problem, at least from what I read) - If I'm wrong - please correct me.

I just created a simple unbricker, that can be downloaded here:
http://xdevelop.at/files/ftdi-unbrick.zip
(yes chrome will say it's a virus because it contains the FTDI drivers inf and sys and exe files)

MAKE SURE YOU UNPLUG ALL FTDI DEVICES EXCEPT THE ONE YOU WANT TO UNBRICK, BEFORE RUNNING THE SOFTWARE

What it does:
1. Installs a driver that will install basic FT2DXX support.
2. Use FTProg to restore the original FT232 Settings

Could anyone give it a test?
Yes it may, and will possibly fail (Murphy ;-) ), but please send me a log output or even a video of the problems.

Greets
Berni

PS: Buying a counterfeit device from ebay will not make sense, as FTDI has already withdrawn the driver from their sites and from windows update

[German_EE]

Does anybody know if devices with an FT232BM chip are affected by this mess? It's rather old, about six or seven years.

[Fungus]

All this could possibly hope to achieve is that the evil "counterfeiters" tweak their chips so they can't be distinguished from real ones by the driver. It will take them a month or so to get get back in business again.

That's it. Absolute best case scenario.

They absolutely are NOT going to stop making counterfeit chips. Nuh uh.


Proposed solution: Drivers refusing to work on fake chips?

Also not an answer. Imagine I have a device that works one day then suddenly stops working the next. As an end user the *only* lesson I'll learn is to not buy anything else with "FTDI" stamped on it. The idea that I'll suddenly replace all my Arduino programmers with something that costs twice as much is ludicrous.

The only answer is to make it easy to spot fake chips. If that means putting a hologram on them or whatever, then that's what they have to do.

Let's hope they see the light very very soon, put out a genuine apology, offer to replace all the bricked devices, publicly name and shame the moron that approved the brickings (so he can never work again). It will wipe out a year's profit, yes, but the alternative is to wipe out the entire company.