Author Topic: FTDIgate 2.0?  (Read 244081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #775 on: February 28, 2016, 04:39:03 pm »
Civilized societies already have established that two wrongs don't make a right and that punishments should serve to undo damages and as an educational tool / incentive to prevent repeating the undesired (bad) behaviour.

There are no two wrongs. Just one. The counterfeiters.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #776 on: February 28, 2016, 04:41:25 pm »
You have yet to give any reason why you believe it is ethical ...

Start reading again this thread from the beginning.

... other than various claims that two wrongs make right.

There are no two wrongs. Just one. The counterfeiters.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4728
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #777 on: February 28, 2016, 04:47:19 pm »
Civilized societies already have established that two wrongs don't make a right and that punishments should serve to undo damages and as an educational tool / incentive to prevent repeating the undesired (bad) behaviour.

There are no two wrongs. Just one. The counterfeiters.

So it's ok for you, when you've got some counterfeit part in you car, let's say a scew, and the manufacturer of the genuine screw smashes all windows and lights of your car?
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #778 on: February 28, 2016, 04:59:04 pm »
Civilized societies already have established that two wrongs don't make a right and that punishments should serve to undo damages and as an educational tool / incentive to prevent repeating the undesired (bad) behaviour.

There are no two wrongs. Just one. The counterfeiters.

So it's ok for you, when you've got some counterfeit part in you car, let's say a scew, and the manufacturer of the genuine screw smashes all windows and lights of your car?

Not a valid comparison. Physically, FTDI didn't brake anything. What FTDI did is preventing the counterfeit chips from working
with the FTDI driver. It's still possible to use the bricked counterfeit chips with another (yet to be made) driver.


The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4728
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #779 on: February 28, 2016, 05:06:13 pm »
So it's ok for you, when you've got some counterfeit part in you car, let's say a scew, and the manufacturer of the genuine screw smashes all windows and lights of your car?

Not a valid comparison. Physically, FTDI didn't brake anything. What FTDI did is preventing the counterfeit chips from working
with the FTDI driver. It's still possible to use the bricked counterfeit chips with another (yet to be made) driver.

Ok, then let's go for an ECU. There's a counterfeit chip in you car's ECU and the menufacturer of the genuine chip disables the counterfeit chip from working via a firmware upgrade in the garage, as you just said. And your car won't start anymore. Better?
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #780 on: February 28, 2016, 05:12:52 pm »
So it's ok for you, when you've got some counterfeit part in you car, let's say a scew, and the manufacturer of the genuine screw smashes all windows and lights of your car?

Not a valid comparison. Physically, FTDI didn't brake anything. What FTDI did is preventing the counterfeit chips from working
with the FTDI driver. It's still possible to use the bricked counterfeit chips with another (yet to be made) driver.

Ok, then let's go for an ECU. There's a counterfeit chip in you car's ECU and the menufacturer of the genuine chip disables the counterfeit chip from working via a firmware upgrade in the garage, as you just said. And your car won't start anymore. Better?

That's a problem for the garage and/or the car manufacturer. Not mine.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline madires

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4728
  • Country: de
  • A qualified hobbyist ;)
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #781 on: February 28, 2016, 05:58:48 pm »
Ok, then let's go for an ECU. There's a counterfeit chip in you car's ECU and the menufacturer of the genuine chip disables the counterfeit chip from working via a firmware upgrade in the garage, as you just said. And your car won't start anymore. Better?

That's a problem for the garage and/or the car manufacturer. Not mine.

The same for any shop selling or any manufacturer producing some electronics with a possible counterfeit FTDI chip. And how would they reduce the risk? More stringent checks of supply chains? Or simply go for another chip, possible less expensive? Anyway, FTDI's actions are very stupid.
 

Offline suicidaleggroll

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1455
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #782 on: February 28, 2016, 06:10:18 pm »
Ok, then let's go for an ECU. There's a counterfeit chip in you car's ECU and the menufacturer of the genuine chip disables the counterfeit chip from working via a firmware upgrade in the garage, as you just said. And your car won't start anymore. Better?

That's a problem for the garage and/or the car manufacturer. Not mine.

The same for any shop selling or any manufacturer producing some electronics with a possible counterfeit FTDI chip. And how would they reduce the risk? More stringent checks of supply chains? Or simply go for another chip, possible less expensive? Anyway, FTDI's actions are very stupid.

That's up to them.  If there's a reasonable chance they're getting counterfeits of ANY chip in their supply chain, they're doing something wrong.  Yes sometimes they slip through and you unknowingly end up with one, but that's a problem regardless of what it's a counterfeit of.  Freaking out because FTDI is actually doing something about it is completely backwards.  You shouldn't want ANY counterfeits, at all.  At least with FTDI you know you've got one and can address the issue directly, instead of spending weeks/months investigating irregular and sporadic failure modes until you manage to track it down (IF you manage to track it down).

More stringent supply chain checking is always the right answer.  Moving to another manufacturer that isn't currently being counterfeited, while continuing to use shady, under-the-table distributors is a lazy way out that just kicks the can down the road and invites counterfeits into all other parts of your product.
 

Offline retrolefty

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1604
  • Country: us
  • measurement changes behavior
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #783 on: February 28, 2016, 06:18:14 pm »
Ok, then let's go for an ECU. There's a counterfeit chip in you car's ECU and the menufacturer of the genuine chip disables the counterfeit chip from working via a firmware upgrade in the garage, as you just said. And your car won't start anymore. Better?

That's a problem for the garage and/or the car manufacturer. Not mine.

The same for any shop selling or any manufacturer producing some electronics with a possible counterfeit FTDI chip. And how would they reduce the risk? More stringent checks of supply chains? Or simply go for another chip, possible less expensive? Anyway, FTDI's actions are very stupid.

 Stupid in your (and others of course) estimation but perhaps not stupid in FTDI's estimation. Their business, their IP, their market, they should be and apparently are free to try and deal with counterfeiters the best they can within the rule of law they are subject to. It's not like any other governments, companies, or users are going to 'fix' the problem for them.

 Perhaps instead of just calling FTDI stupid, people could suggest better constructive steps FTDI should have taken?
 

Offline Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4663
  • Country: gb
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #784 on: February 28, 2016, 06:37:47 pm »
Quote
Perhaps instead of just calling FTDI stupid, people could suggest better constructive steps FTDI should have taken?

I think that more constructive step has been stated many, many times in this (and the previous FTDI thread) - make their drivers simply refuse to work with the fake chips, don't brick them, don't send out garbage text, just don't work with them. It's that simple!  :palm:
Chris

"Victor Meldrew, the Crimson Avenger!"
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #785 on: February 28, 2016, 06:42:14 pm »
Quote
Perhaps instead of just calling FTDI stupid, people could suggest better constructive steps FTDI should have taken?

I think that more constructive step has been stated many, many times in this (and the previous FTDI thread) - make their drivers simply refuse to work with the fake chips, don't brick them, don't send out garbage text, just don't work with them. It's that simple!  :palm:

This.

I really don't understand why they went the frankly very puerile route of spitting out garbage data. They can just not work. Very few of us would have a problem with that. I certainly wouldn't.

We've also said this many times in this thread, so "people could suggest better constructive steps" is yet another case of speaking before reading. |O
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Online Ian.M

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8011
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #786 on: February 28, 2016, 06:51:32 pm »
Exactly.  Simply not working with non-FTDI chips is reasonable and expected, but tampering with stored or streamed customer data is on a similar ethical level as the actions of a typical cracker.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #787 on: February 28, 2016, 06:53:23 pm »
Quote
Perhaps instead of just calling FTDI stupid, people could suggest better constructive steps FTDI should have taken?

I think that more constructive step has been stated many, many times in this (and the previous FTDI thread)

No, it has not.

- make their drivers simply refuse to work with the fake chips, don't brick them, don't send out garbage text, just don't work with them.

Why not? The effect is the same. Counterfeit chips can not be used with FTDI drivers.
Generating the string "not a genuine chip" is just done as a courtesy to inform what the cause is.
For the enduser who has no clue, it makes no difference at all. He needs to get his device returned to the seller to let
it repaired or replaced. Whether or not there's this string does not going to make any difference, isn't it?


The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4663
  • Country: gb
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #788 on: February 28, 2016, 06:59:05 pm »
Quote
Perhaps instead of just calling FTDI stupid, people could suggest better constructive steps FTDI should have taken?

I think that more constructive step has been stated many, many times in this (and the previous FTDI thread)

No, it has not.

many, many, Many, Many, MANY, MANY MANY TIMES  |O

Did you get beaten up much when you were at school? Just curious  :-\
Chris

"Victor Meldrew, the Crimson Avenger!"
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #789 on: February 28, 2016, 07:00:57 pm »
Exactly.  Simply not working with non-FTDI chips is reasonable and expected, but tampering with stored or streamed customer data is on a similar ethical level as the actions of a typical cracker.

You say that but can you explain why? As far is I understood, there's no data at all apart from the string "not a genuine chip".
I prefer this instead of a non working driver that causes hours, maybe days to debug what is going on.
Thanks to this string, an engineer sees immediately what's going on and can act accordingly.

For the enduser there's no difference. His device is not working. He has to return it anyway, with or without this string.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #790 on: February 28, 2016, 07:04:37 pm »
many, many, Many, Many, MANY, MANY MANY TIMES  |O

Did you get beaten up much when you were at school? Just curious  :-\

You convinced me with your very intelligent reply.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4663
  • Country: gb
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #791 on: February 28, 2016, 07:07:29 pm »
Well that's good then. The thread can finally be closed.  :)
Chris

"Victor Meldrew, the Crimson Avenger!"
 

Offline CatalinaWOW

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3242
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #792 on: February 28, 2016, 07:23:37 pm »
I will just say to Karel that if the device fails when not doing a critical test or being used for something you actually needed to do it is perhaps acceptable to force the innocent end user to return their device for repair.  No very comforting if you actually were planning to use it during the days, weeks or months required to resolve the issue.

You would suggest that this experience will encourage people to choose vendors who are more careful in controlling their supply chain.  Valid point.  This would reduce the risk of problems of this nature, although it is impossible to eliminate them totally.  But choosing avoid FTDI parts and devices incorporating them is also a valid choice, in that there is potentially less risk of negative consequences from a mistake.

Hopefully FTDI thought of this when they evaluated their response to those counterfeiting their devices.  Only time will tell if their revenue is sustained or improved by their actions, or if they are financially hurt by them.  I can say that if I were them I would be nervous about the outcome, and as an investor I would be cautious.  The answer is not obvious to me.
 

Online Ian.M

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8011
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #793 on: February 28, 2016, 07:26:58 pm »
Exactly.  Simply not working with non-FTDI chips is reasonable and expected, but tampering with stored or streamed customer data is on a similar ethical level as the actions of a typical cracker.

You say that but can you explain why? As far is I understood, there's no data at all apart from the string "not a genuine chip".
I prefer this instead of a non working driver that causes hours, maybe days to debug what is going on.
Thanks to this string, an engineer sees immediately what's going on and can act accordingly.
Incorrect.  See post #161 of this topic.


As you were active in the topic at the time, I can only conclude that you are being deliberately obtuse.

By tampering with the datastream, FTDI made serial activity LEDs look normal, and by failing to identify the driver responsible in their message, FTDI wasted a lot of support technicians time.  A driver that simply rejected the device would have shown up in Device Manager, and the COM port would have been missing.  That would in most cases be far far easier to debug, as Microsoft dropped bundling a terminal program when they released Windows 7 so a lot of end users don't even have the tools to see the message.

 

Offline Karel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1375
  • Country: 00
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #794 on: February 28, 2016, 07:28:52 pm »
... to force the innocent end user to return their device for repair. ...

Please, don't confuse cause and effect. It's not FTDI's fault that they have to return their device.
Blame the counterfeiters.
The difference between theory and practice is less in theory than
the difference between theory and practice in practice.
Expensive tools cannot compensate for lack of experience.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #795 on: February 28, 2016, 07:34:01 pm »
Well that's good then. The thread can finally be closed.  :)

Impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_loop
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #796 on: February 28, 2016, 07:47:45 pm »
Exactly.  Simply not working with non-FTDI chips is reasonable and expected, but tampering with stored or streamed customer data is on a similar ethical level as the actions of a typical cracker.

You say that but can you explain why? As far is I understood, there's no data at all apart from the string "not a genuine chip".
I prefer this instead of a non working driver that causes hours, maybe days to debug what is going on.
Thanks to this string, an engineer sees immediately what's going on and can act accordingly.

For the enduser there's no difference. His device is not working. He has to return it anyway, with or without this string.

Send the message to the system error log, that's how drivers are supposed to report problems. Or do you have an issue with doing things the right way?

For christ's sake, as engineers we should be condemning this just for being poorly engineered! There's a defined place for messages like this, send it there.
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Online TheSteve

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Country: ca
  • GHz
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #797 on: February 28, 2016, 07:51:17 pm »
I assume it has been mentioned before in this thread but how is this any different then how Prolific handled the counterfeit PL2303 chips? They updated the driver so it doesn't start if the chip is detected to not be genuine.
I am not convinced FTDI is handling this the best way possible but long term I think it is probably there only solution(assuming it doesn't kill the company). We're still using FT232RL's at work, they are the best solution for our product and buying from Digikey we aren't too concerned about fakes.
VE7FM
 

Offline Gyro

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4663
  • Country: gb
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #798 on: February 28, 2016, 08:29:15 pm »
Well that's good then. The thread can finally be closed.  :)

Impossible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_loop

Well it was a good try - there was even a brief pause.

Maybe I should have tried:

========= END OF THREAD LINE, DO NOT CROSS ==========
                          TROLLS ONLY BEYOND THIS POINT

 :-DD
Chris

"Victor Meldrew, the Crimson Avenger!"
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17655
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: FTDIgate 2.0?
« Reply #799 on: February 28, 2016, 09:21:03 pm »
Civilized societies already have established that two wrongs don't make a right and that punishments should serve to undo damages and as an educational tool / incentive to prevent repeating the undesired (bad) behaviour.
There are no two wrongs. Just one. The counterfeiters.
I'd like you to show court cases where a company or people got away with damaging third party property because they want to settle a dispute on their own (bypassing the legal system).
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf