but most OSs now use "privacy addresses" that are basically random and change periodically. Once an address is chosen, default address detection (DAD) is performed to verify that the address is not already in use on the local segment. Then it is bound to the interface.
A few cases of similar protection of trivial magic numbers people seem to be forgetting:
http://mashable.com/2009/10/03/palm-restores-itunes-sync/
http://hackaday.com/2014/08/05/hardware-security-and-a-dmca-takedown-notice/
Good on FTDI for having a go and pushing the squatters off their driver, the device isn't bricked it is simply not recognised by their driver anymore. Intentionally looking for a device which isn't licensed to use the software and disabling it from doing so sounds legitimate when you put it that way.
Good on FTDI for having a go and pushing the squatters off their driver, the device isn't bricked it is simply not recognised by their driver anymore. Intentionally looking for a device which isn't licensed to use the software and disabling it from doing so sounds legitimate when you put it that way.
Good on FTDI for having a go and pushing the squatters off their driver, the device isn't bricked it is simply not recognised by their driver anymore.
Intentionally looking for a device which isn't licensed to use the software and disabling it from doing so sounds legitimate when you put it that way.
Anyway, looks like FTDI learned their lesson
Fluke did a much better job with the Sparkfun's yellow DMMs.
A MAC address is in its nature not unique nor does it needs to be. As long as you have one MAC address on a segment it works correctly. The IPV6 address needs to be unique if some one clones them you get a lot of problems.How do you think a constrained device gets an IPv6 address in the IoT universe?
Answer: it is a direct substitute of its MAC address. So NO it is not allowed to have two devices with the same MAC address in this setting
QuoteFluke did a much better job with the Sparkfun's yellow DMMs.
One thing Fluke did right was to use the law, not to break it. That tremendously helps handling the fallout.
Is this the same as the ethernet MAC address? If so it is not guaranteed to be unique.
Keep in mind that MAC address are not routed through a gateway. The IP address is needed for that.
The protocol keeps the IP address and substitue the MAC address with the address of the correct gateway on each new segment /route it encouters. Thats how IPv4 works since the hardware has not changed I do not think IPv6 will change this behaviour.
Also note that an MAC address is 6 bytes long. Many of these bits are used for the manufactor. And they only needed to be unique within one segment.
FTDI actually got (used to have) a lot of fans all over. If they have approached the whole issue responsibily, and seek help and support, they can get to their pot of gold. But in a swipe, they inflame these fans into their most bitter enermies. I am not a high volume buyers. When I do buy, I bought the so-called industrial grade FTDI cable and sold how good these cables to my clients, and strongly recommend them to get the FTDI for their departments and subsidaries. They trust my word as I have solved a lot of their tough problems. I believe a lot of people here are (tech) opinions leaders. But now, I have to bad mouth FTDI. This type of company is too dangerous to be around. You never know what they may resort to in the future, and when they can.
From: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/windows-update-drivers-bricking-usb-serial-chips-beloved-of-hardware-hackers/QuoteUpdate: Microsoft has given us a statement:
Yesterday FTDI removed two driver versions from Windows Update. Our engineering team is engaging with FTDI to prevent these problems with their future driver updates via Windows Update.
Sounds like MS stepped up and put them in their place over this issue...
PS SIMON.... I never figured you were sparkylabs... I've ordered a number of stuff off you in the past and always been happy :-) (Waves)
From: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/windows-update-drivers-bricking-usb-serial-chips-beloved-of-hardware-hackers/QuoteUpdate: Microsoft has given us a statement:
Yesterday FTDI removed two driver versions from Windows Update. Our engineering team is engaging with FTDI to prevent these problems with their future driver updates via Windows Update.
Sounds like MS stepped up and put them in their place over this issue...
PS SIMON.... I never figured you were sparkylabs... I've ordered a number of stuff off you in the past and always been happy :-) (Waves)
Good stuff
I'm yet to catch up on the topic but I think FTDI are going over the top. perhaps they could modify their chip design so that is looks in a certain place for a code and if it's not there or wrong it refuses to use the driver. I know it means changes for them but welcome to life poor FTDI, it would not help old chips being fakes and really as they are already our there and in customers gear it is wrong to punish the end user but it would help protect future devices. Bricking devices people thought to be genuine FTDI will not help their image at all. But then since being back in the Uk i have learnt that consumers have very little rights at all, and the bigger the company and the more "consumer friendly stuff" they sign up to the more unlikely external bodies are to step in and help while your left in an endless loop in their "complaints procedure" or whatever fancy process they have that keep official bodies happy but does very little for the user.
From: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/10/windows-update-drivers-bricking-usb-serial-chips-beloved-of-hardware-hackers/QuoteUpdate: Microsoft has given us a statement:
Yesterday FTDI removed two driver versions from Windows Update. Our engineering team is engaging with FTDI to prevent these problems with their future driver updates via Windows Update.
Sounds like MS stepped up and put them in their place over this issue...
PS SIMON.... I never figured you were sparkylabs... I've ordered a number of stuff off you in the past and always been happy :-) (Waves)
Good stuff
I'm yet to catch up on the topic but I think FTDI are going over the top. perhaps they could modify their chip design so that is looks in a certain place for a code and if it's not there or wrong it refuses to use the driver. I know it means changes for them but welcome to life poor FTDI, it would not help old chips being fakes and really as they are already our there and in customers gear it is wrong to punish the end user but it would help protect future devices. Bricking devices people thought to be genuine FTDI will not help their image at all. But then since being back in the Uk i have learnt that consumers have very little rights at all, and the bigger the company and the more "consumer friendly stuff" they sign up to the more unlikely external bodies are to step in and help while your left in an endless loop in their "complaints procedure" or whatever fancy process they have that keep official bodies happy but does very little for the user.
Problem is they have to support legacy FTDI devices. So that would do nothing about clones of the FT232RL and other existing devices. And just reading out some ID is trivial to duplicate, so it will do nothing to fix the counterfeit problem. Incidentally, the current difference that they are exploiting is quite easy to fix and in a few months we will see clones that are invulnerable to the current destructive clone counterfeit test.
Someone posted this over at Slashdot, amused me:
>We've discovered some counterfeit parts in your car.
-Oh, really? Well, I'm going to drive over to the dealership take that up with them.
>We've already handled the problem. We crushed your car into a cube.
-Uhhh...
>You have 15 seconds to move your cube.
How will FTDI prove that my devices are, endeed, a counterfit? I could claim that they are originals and stick to it, the same way they are claiming to be counterfiting ICs. I could then claim that even after decapping the IC, they could still be from FTDI. And what if they are all genuine and they're trying to convince us otherwise because they released a bad batch or a buggy firmware / hardware version?
I am seriously curious - I want to buy one of those counterfeit FT232s and play with it. How/where do I buy one which is definitely NOT the original?