I have seen some (safety related!) devices get upset when they receive data which they don't expect so yes: sending random data to a device can lead to damage, injuries and even death.
In that case the designer was incompetent. If a device can cause injuries or death, it should have at least some crc check over the
It is not only about a CRC check but also about buffer overflows. I totally agree about the incompetent designer remark but the fact is those kind of designers are out there and put their software in products which are on the market. We don't live in an ideal world so it is better to be cautious and not send random data to a device.
(EDIT: I forgot to mention that i agree with nctnico. I am rather ranting about the silly implied notion permeating this thread that with this updated FTDI driver a machine like a CNC would become unsafe, and not using this particular FTDI driver would make the same machine safe again. Without stating this explicitly, my somewhat coffein-induced rant might be seen as in disagreement with nctnico, which it is not. I hope
)
Look, there is no new kind of dangerous situation posed to CNC machines or their operators.
Since their inception, CNC machines had to be designed with safety-relevant problem scenarios in mind. These include, but are not limited to the machine receiving improper parameters exceeding its operating envelope, or plain data garbage. The scenario of a (FTDI) driver sending nonsensical data to the CNC machine is just another flavor of that old scenario.
If a CNC machine cannot deal with such a problem scenario, then it has been designed by idiots. That doesn't mean that i think such machines don't exist. I tend to agree with you that this is not an ideal world. Unscrupulous people/entities are able to peddle their questionable products/services as long as it is dirt-cheap (which nicely leads back to bargain-price counterfeit chips
)
Of course, not all improper parameters sent to a CNC machine do exceed its operating envelope. Improper parameters could simply be such that damage/destroy the workpiece or even damage/destroy the tool bit. Obviously, one can imagine a scenario where malevolent software sends the wrong parameters to the machine. But equally, one can imagine a scenario where wrong parameters would be send to the machine simply due to operator error or a bug/glitch in some software module. In terms of safety, there is really no new problem scenario introduced by some FTDI driver sending some bad/garbage data.
With regard to danger to health and life, any CNC machine should have appropriate safety in place. A housing or curtain to protect against flying bits and pieces, guard fences, safety mats, etc... Someone (person/entity) who operates a CNC which is missing critical safety systems (appropriate to the "size" of the machine) is a reckless idiot and there really is no reason or excuse to shift the blame on to a malfunctioning or misbehaving PC (in the broadest sense, including the software and drivers running on it, and also including a communications channel which cannot ensure data integrity by itself) if somebody gets injured...
In my opinion the view that FTDI's driver behavior creates a new safety risk to health and life is quite some hyperbole.
I mean, let's assume for a moment that you have such a machine which reacts allergic and kills everyone in the room if it receives incorrect data.
What if you have a com bridge chip which is not from FTDI in your machine?
What if that chip and the related driver work properly and do not (willfully or accidentally) produce garbage data?
What if the firmware in the machine, or the software running on the controlling PC occasionally produces buggy, glitchy, wrong data that is being sent properly to the machine?
What if there are bit-flips occurring during transfer of data from the PC to the machine, which are not detected via parity bit?
What if the PC crashes or dies mid-transmission?
Will you sleep well in the knowledge that you don't have the abysmal FTDI driver running on the system, and thus health and life are not in danger?
Don't get me wrong. I am not an apologist, and i do not like what FTDI are doing. With regard to economic losses, i would completely understand someone who worries that the behavior of the FTDI driver could lead to unexpected and substantial losses when devices with undiscovered fake FTDI chips are involved in production. This is a by all means a valid and serious concern.
But i don't get why people think that FTDI's driver behavior suddenly creates a new safety hazard that has not been there before. It simply doesn't. It only can trigger a
safety hazard that already exists outside of the FTDI driver and (fake) FTDI chip.. Shoot the messenger, i guess...