FTDI driver kills fake FTDI FT232??

[mikeselectricstuff]

if you want to go after people, go after SELLERS.  punishing USERS is borderline illegal.  if you brick a chip in a product that people depend on, I think you'll find some lawyers hungry to fight you in a class-action suit.

Especially if it affects kit necessary for a business - could be some major consequential losses involved

[AndyC_772]

The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it sounds.

Suppose I use my iPhone to browse to, say, Samsung's web site. Would it be OK for the site to contain code that bricks my phone, just because there's some ongoing patent dispute between the two companies?

I have an urgent and important job coming up in a couple of days which will require my serial cable. It had f**king better work.

[edit]: To FTDI, you do realise that the correct response, for a user of an affected product, is to buy a replacement that doesn't even claim to contain an FTDI chip, right?

[Rufus]

I acknowledge that people and companies have the right to defend their copyrights. I can't however condone destroying counterfeit products which where purchased in good faith.

Containing a stolen VID the device isn't USB standard compliant so you should not have expectations of it working in the first place. Possessors of stolen property generally have few rights regardless of their knowledge of it being stolen.

FTDI should have 'reclaimed' their VID, presumably not and option, I can't blame them for trashing the PID instead.

[bookaboo]

We recommend to all our customers to guarantee genuine FTDI products please purchase either from FTDI directly or from one of our authorised distributors. Please follow this link to locate your local distributor:  http://www.ftdichip.com/FTSalesNetwork.htm

For more information please refer to FTDI`s counterfeit statement and driver license agreement.
 
http://www.ftdichip.com/Support/Documents/QualityDocuments/Counterfeit statement.pdf
 
http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/FTDriverLicenceTerms.htm
 
When the FTDI driver is installed you are agreeing the terms of use of FTDI`s device. Please note that FTDI`s driver licence agreement will be broken if used with counterfeit devices.
 

Terrible behaviour by FTDI, stuff like this can cause people no end of trouble and hassle. Man up and go after the counterfeiters not consumers.

[sacherjj]

When the FTDI driver is installed you are agreeing the terms of use of FTDI`s device. Please note that FTDI`s driver licence agreement will be broken if used with counterfeit devices.
 

At what point when Windows automatically installs drivers have I agreed to anything?  You explicitly changed the agreement and there is no point where I was required to agree to anything on any of the agreements.  It is interesting timing.  I am designing a product currently that is using USB to Serial.  I had your chipset in the design.  It is now gone.

I don't plan on getting counterfeit chips, but that you are actively changing chips rather than denying in the driver world, means I can't trust you.  If you have an error in your driver detection, it can't be fixed with a driver update.  I can't take that risk and have to sue FTDI, because I'm being sued by my customers.

[linux-works]

I recently did a windows update and saw the ftdi update.  I stupidly accepted it, but there was no notice or warning - it just updated like the millions of other nameless and opaque windows updates.  (damn, I really do hate windows; this is yet another reason to hate it).

now, on linux, we will NEVER see this kind of driver hostility.  no kernel dev worth his salt would submit a 'kill bit' patch like this.  even if he did, we could easily roll it back (at the source level); but with windows, its not quite as easy.

this is going to cost me time, now.   I should send ftdi a bill for my time - having to go thru all my windows installs and remove the bad driver and find the last good copy and lock it down.

dammit, ftdi!!

[sacherjj]

I acknowledge that people and companies have the right to defend their copyrights. I can't however condone destroying counterfeit products which where purchased in good faith.

Containing a stolen VID the device isn't USB standard compliant so you should not have expectations of it working in the first place. Possessors of stolen property generally have few rights regardless of their knowledge of it being stolen.

FTDI should have 'reclaimed' their VID, presumably not and option, I can't blame them for trashing the PID instead.

You can't "steal" integers.  It is not illegal to make a USB compatible interface and provide whatever ints you want.  If the device maker wants it to be a secured link, they have to make it so.  It would be illegal to use a USB logo without certification, but not illegal to make a compatible interface.

However, on the flip side, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a hobbiest or anyone else making open hardware supporting USB to get a VID.  USB group actually made it against the agreement for someone who licenses VIDs to even give them away to projects.  In other words, because the USB consortium doesn't care about USB use by non-large companies, the only option of some is to pick a PID/VID and run with it.

If serial communication is all you need, then using a chip like FTDI is an option, but that doesn't fit all uses.

[zapta]

Suppose I use my iPhone to browse to, say, Samsung's web site. Would it be OK for the site to contain code that bricks my phone, just because there's some ongoing patent dispute between the two companies?

That's an excellent analogy.  If microsoft pushes these drivers they may also be liable, I wonder if they are aware of FTDI's practices.

Does windows come with CDC installed by default?

[Rufus]

And how were users warned that it might kill their stuff?

It didn't kill their stuff - their stuff didn't have any drivers. Supereal Microelectronics or whoever makes this shitty clone could produce drivers and their stuff would work fine - well as fine as it can when you are using a VID belonging to someone else.

Suppose I use my iPhone to browse to, say, Samsung's web site. Would it be OK for the site to contain code that bricks my phone, just because there's some ongoing patent dispute between the two companies?

That's an excellent analogy.

It is a poor analogy. FTDI have produced a new driver version which only work with their chips. They detect chips with stolen VIDs and trash the PID so their older drivers won't work with those chips either. They haven't bricked anything the chips always were bricks. If there were some legitimate drivers for the clone chips you could argue that something has been bricked but still blame the clone for using a stolen VID which is telling the computer to use the wrong drivers.

[amyk]

Does windows come with CDC installed by default?

usbser.sys, all you need is a .inf to use it.

[mikeselectricstuff]

And how were users warned that it might kill their stuff?

It didn't kill their stuff - their stuff didn't have any drivers. Supereal Microelectronics or whoever makes this shitty clone could produce drivers and their stuff would work fine - well as fine as it can when you are using a VID belonging to someone else.

I have an old fake device that worked before, updating FTDI driver kills it in a way the stops it working even if I revert all the software. It killed my stuff.

[mikeselectricstuff]

One question - after it has killed your fake device, does it give any meaningful message to explain ?

[Rufus]

I have an old fake device that worked before, updating FTDI driver kills it in a way the stops it working even if I revert all the software. It killed my stuff.

Nope now it just needs the correct driver which never existed.

[nctnico]

Suppose I use my iPhone to browse to, say, Samsung's web site. Would it be OK for the site to contain code that bricks my phone, just because there's some ongoing patent dispute between the two companies?

That's an excellent analogy.  If microsoft pushes these drivers they may also be liable, I wonder if they are aware of FTDI's practices.

Does windows come with CDC installed by default?

Unfortunately not. On Mac OS and Linux a CDC device works out of the box but on Windows you need a .inf file to tell Windows which driver to use 

One question - after it has killed your fake device, does it give any meaningful message to explain ?

No. It just doesn't work.

[linux-works]

The driver reprograms the product ID so it won't work.

Price of buying fake chips.

If that is the case you can easily bind the new VID/PID to the correct driver in Linux and it should still work:

Code: [Select]

A vid/pid pair can be added dynamically using sysfs, for example:

echo 0403 1234 >/sys/bus/usb-serial/drivers/ftdi_sio/new_id
Again, if that is the only "damage" done, lsusb should help you find the device, or just monitoring dmesg as you attach it.

this did not work for me, I just tried it.  1234 should be 6001, of course (for people who will just mouse it in..)

one of my chips JUST got bricked.  FUCK FTDI!  dammit, you guys now suck so badly.  what was once a functional board is now dead unless I can re-rewrite the pid.

even when I uninstalled the windows driver, the pid still got zeroed out.


if there are lawyers here, please consider starting a class-action.  I'll gladly contribute.  this is pure bullshit!

[edavid]

this did not work for me, I just tried it.  1234 should be 6001, of course (for people who will just mouse it in..)

No.  It should be 0, since that's what the PID got set to by the killer driver.  Then I think you can either use the device that way, or use FTDI's tool to reprogram the PID to e.g. 6001.  (Sorry I don't know all the details, maybe someone else can fill that in.)

[Rufus]

if there are lawyers here, please consider starting a class-action.  I'll gladly contribute.  this is pure bullshit!

Somehow I don't think you are going to find much sympathy complaining about counterfeit goods not working.

How far do you think you would get trying to sue Rolex because the cheap Chinese copy you bought stopped keeping good time?

I have an old fake device that worked before, updating FTDI driver kills it in a way the stops it working even if I revert all the software. It killed my stuff.

Nope now it just needs the correct driver which never existed.

Nope nope.  Windows 7/8 USB stack doesn't like a PID of 0.  Once the PID has been zapped, it won't work with any driver on Windows 7/8.

There is no legitimate driver for the chip so being able to work or not with a driver that doesn't exist is irrelevant.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I have an old fake device that worked before, updating FTDI driver kills it in a way the stops it working even if I revert all the software. It killed my stuff.

Nope now it just needs the correct driver which never existed.

It worked before, using an old FTDI driver ( which contains no restrictions in the distribution package on only using it with only FTDI chips).
Even after reverting, it's still broken.   If the Windows update did not explicitly warn me, then I suspect this is a deliberate act of unlawful damage to my property.

(Hypothetical situation, I've only ever bought FTDI stuff from FTDI, Easysync or Farnell) 

[sacherjj]

This is going to impact the end user.  This is the person who bought a device and has no clue what is in it.  It is amazing to me that FTDI doesn't pop up a window and say, the device you are using is counterfeit and will not work with this driver.  I have no issues with that.  When we get into killing devices, this is an issue.  Let alone, killing them WITHOUT LETTING THE USER KNOW ANYTHING.  They assume it died.  So they buy another one, because it worked for a long while before it died.  And now this one immediately dies.

This doesn't nothing to hurt the counterfeit using manufacturers for a while, but completely and utterly screws over the end consumers who knew nothing of this fight WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION AT ALL.

If FTDI thinks this is an OK way to do business, I can't trust their judgment on other things.  Why would I choose to include their products in mine?  I really think this is a PR killer for them.  Handled very poorly.

[linux-works]

there will be lawyers on this.  just a matter of time.

what wrong did I do by buying a device on amazon, fully believing that the items there won't be ebay-style fakes?

how is it right, in your view, to punish ME for this?

I can see which side you are on, but you are so wrong about this.  so terribly wrong.  go after the vendors.  NEVER GO AFTER END USERS.  they are not at fault.  if you think they are, then we now know what kind of person YOU are...

taking ftdi's side is not going to win you any friends, here.

[jeremy]

Well aside from the legality, this is a pretty poor move and it makes me a little sad because I had a very high opinion of ftdi. If I put counterfeit parts in my Toyota, it doesn't explode. Sure, if it causes a crash I am on my own, and if Toyota refuses to service it that is fine, but I feel like this is like me checking my car in for a service and coming back to find that it has been neatly compacted into a cube.

I hope this is a catalyst to move to CDC for everything usb serial. The world could do with one less vendor-locked protocol.

[AndyC_772]

I think it's fairly obvious what the general opinion is, from both end-users and professional design engineers. Both are likely to avoid FTDI in future, just in case their products end up containing chips that, through no fault of their own, are deemed as infringing by some piece of driver code.

At least if I design a Cypress, or Prolific, or Microchip part into my product, it's less likely to get wrecked by malware. It's a great shame, because as a general rule I like(d) FTDI products, but now I can't take the risk. FTDI might gain a short-term victory against counterfeiters, but it'll emerge from the battle with its brand in tatters and a suite of updated, more accurate copies to deal with.

Nobody wins here, and I won't be a pawn in someone else's IP dispute.

[Rufus]

If FTDI thinks this is an OK way to do business,

Supporting poor clones of their chips with drivers isn't doing business. I think that is rather their point.

[nctnico]

If FTDI thinks this is an OK way to do business,

Supporting poor clones of their chips with drivers isn't doing business. I think that is rather their point.

That is a typical American point of view. Shoot first, ask questions later. In this case FTDI is killing their entire customer base to get to one counterfeiter which operates in a market FTDI can't penetrate to begin with.

[linux-works]

how many times do we have to explain this?

detect a bad chip: fine!  display a popup and inform the user.

destroy the chip?  NOT SO FINE.

you've just destroyed property of mine.  if you think that's ok, post your name and company so I can avoid you in the future, as well as any products your company makes.