Somehow with FTDI chips it's "normal", "okay" and expected to get counterfeit goods. And heaven forbid the original manufacturer doesn't support you in your innocence.

But if someone ships you a fake ATtiny all hell breaks loose and the Chinese ebay seller must be punished, hours and hours are spent communicating with ebay, with PayPal, with other users' on web forums.

Hobbyist electronics people are strange. Wake up and give Mouser hell if they send you faked goods!

I built that board into a piece of test equipment that's likely to be used for 5 or 10 years. Fortunately this whole saga happened while I was still developing it - if their chip bricking driver had been released a year later, I'd probably not have known about it. Someone would connect the test PC to Windows Update in 3 years time, and the device would stop working.

Counterfeit chips are a reality, and not one that people building devices on a small scale can properly mitigate against. Not buying chips on alibaba is common sense, but not buying pre-built modules from Farnell? If you're not going to buy them from Farnell, where are you going to buy them from?

But why do you simply accept that? Have you even complained to Farnell?

Read the sundry web forums, very few people complain to their distributor. Everyone bitches about FTDI.

And that's what's really bugging me here. In the FTDI case the problem has obviously gotten out of hand. I can totally understand that the manufacturer wants to get tougher.

Why not just pop up a small window with a message "Hey, this product seems to contain counterfeit chips. Please tell us where you bought it so that _we_ can take care of the problem."

I'd prefer it if FTDI weren't utter douchebags around this whole ordeal. I understand they have to make money, but since when is it a problem when devices are API-compatible with existing device drivers? As far as I'm concerned, this is a rather common and generally beneficial thing.

But there's no way for an end-user to do this. And since they're the ones being punished by the bricking (any supply chain movement is a second-order effect driven by upset customers), and since I lack the technical capacity to identify a knock-off, then my most rational course of action is to avoid anything that might be counterfeit . . . by insisting on a totally different chip.

Not having FTDI in your design is a feature. And that's easily checked by plugging the device into a USB port and looking at the VID/PID.

FTDI has a death wish.

FTDI do not provide any useful traceability systems. Rather than providing their customers with a reliable means to identify genuine parts, they have hugely increased the risk posed to their customers by counterfeit parts.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/11/07/7323/counterfeit-c... http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/counterfeit-chip...

And you also glossed over "FTDI compatible" chips. They too exist, and do not claim to be a legit FTDI (the markings on the case are what make a counterfeit, not the underlying silicon). Yet the FTDI driver disables them all, in one way or another.

You assume I'm talking purely about the hobbyist market: anyone who pays for a usb FTDI adapter at $1.50 should know it's likely a counterfeit.

But for a normal part? It's lousy.

Instead, 'How do I know that the devices I bought up to 3 years ago don't have a "detected counterfeit" chip and get nuked by a future FTDI driver update?'

Or, 'How do I keep from getting malware and other bad actor software in via Windows Updates?'

Safety development is serious business. You cannot justify your "I want everything as cheap as possible, counterfeit or not" attitude with some hallucinated safety risk.

That is indefensible, regardless of whether it's right or wrong to use counterfeit parts.

As an embedded medical devices engineer, I know you are exactly right. For safety-critical devices, control of the supply chain is beyond good practice, it's required by federal law, precisely so bad actors can't interfere with peoples' lives. The long list of requirements around approving a vendor are tiring and result in epic stories like the $500 toilet seat, etc., but they prevent stuff like this FTDI debacle from happening. You know it's going to be a toilet seat when the box arrives.

The medical device industry is a massive cultural shift from the majority of the HN crowd (e.g. startups and cloud services). In the world of PCs and servers, disruption is, literally, the name of the game. In IEC62304 land though, everything has to be on the straight, narrow and predictable path. This is why medical devices are expensive, laggy and not very startup-compatible. The FDA's system is actually more secure than Europe's. Take that, socialized medicine!

So it's not always wild and fun here in medical-land. It's like being a cop vs. a cowboy. You're not paid to sling your guns, but to de-escalate. But thank the conservative practices next time your elderly or congenitally defective family members found themselves in the hospital!

We already have fitness devices that can communicate with a PC. Is it really unthinkable that the next batch of medical devices will do something similar? For example, a wearable sensor to continuously measure your insulin levels?

Will you be using an FTDI chip in such consumer devices?

Yes, exactly.

I used to work at a sub-contractor for a large manufacturer of medical equipment, and all the systems we dealt with were like that. The device would run a very small embedded OS but would have a serial port for talking to a PC for firmware development, firmware updates, logging, diagnostics, etc. Their older stuff used real hardware serial ports, but their newer systems (~6-7 years ago now) were moving to virtual USB/FTDI serial ports, with an FTDI chip included in the embedded system.

These tricky FTDI drivers would absolutely have the potential to brick and/or alter the operation of such a device; it's not far-fetched or a flight of fancy at all.

I have a special interest in this thread/issue because I have recently been contacted by that manufacturer regarding one of these FTDI-using systems which has recently begun to exhibit new problems. I haven't started looking into that yet, and I don't know where it will lead, but I'll have to bear in mind the possibility of deliberate driver-based monkey-business now.

So what if all of your preproduction systems have a genuine FTDI chip in them, and many of your millions of deployed production systems have counterfeits that you don't know about? That'll be exciting.

Quality is a matter of defense in depth. You can't rely on your preproduction system running the exact same way as production. You strive for consistency, but ultimately each chip in each computer is a unique physical object made with different silicon crystals, and being identical is impossible. You want a system that's robust against a variety of subtle differences.

FTDI is just doing their small bit to make everything just a little more fragile and unpredictable where their chips are concerned, and as such their products ought to be shunned.

I agree with your premise, but in this case, for a medical device it would also be a Quality Systems failure. Any change in a component is scrutinized and analyzed for impact. You have no idea how many times (as a software dev for medical devices), I've had someone from Manufacturing or Purchasing come to ask me "if we change (trivial part X) to a new vendor, what can go wrong and how can we test it?" as a precursor to executing a Change Plan.

I'm not kidding. Even something as seemingly trivial as changing the type of paint used on an enclosure can trigger weeks or months of analysis depending on what's in that enclosure.

Safety-critical and safety-related applications are a totally different game than what most HNers are used to!

It's clearly unsafe to not wear a seatbelt, but it's also clearly wrong to build a device into cars that kills occupants that get in a crash if they aren't wearing one.

I agree. I don't want to put counterfeits in my product.

Now, show me FTDI's standards documents that indicate how to identify and test for fakes. (Hint: they don't)

As far as I understand, this "behaviour" is totally deterministic and certain. You immediately notice the problem in any test system.

Don't believe that safety-critical devices are allowed to install some drivers willy-nilly!

And when QA validates them on a set of systems that happen to be legit and ships it to systems that happen to have counterfeits?

You seem to be arguing in this thread with a false dilemma between EITHER we must accept counterfeiting OR we must brick the chips, but there are in between measures that are way safer.

Prior art: Several versions of Windows have been able to detect if they were "genuine". Non-genuine windows did not brick their machine, or destroy themselves. Quick googling suggests it blocks you from getting updates, and pops up with links to a page on Microsoft where you could properly license it with some discount. That exact solution may not apply here, but there are options other than destroying hardware that is carrying your name.

(I mean, this isn't even good for FTDI... how many customers will never find out about this and simply learn that "FTDI chips spontaneously die a lot"? Not the brand experience I'm looking for!)

FTDI does not provide any guide lines to third parties how to test whether their chips are counterfeit or not.

The only way to test it is trying to use it with FTDI's Windows driver, and FTDI randomly changes the both the detection criteria, and the action done on detecting a counterfeit chip – sometimes it bricks them, sometimes it sends gibberish, you have no way of knowing beforehand. FTDI doesn't even guarantee that this behaviour is deterministic!

Popular moralism in a nutshell. "I can steal from big companies because they're evil! But if someone even samples one of my songs I'm lawyering up!"

There's something almost psychopathic about how people just rationalize amorality because the entity they're attacking from is "big" or "different" Or "the other." I guess the mp3 wars are over with Google Music, Spotify, Apple Music, etc but for a long time it was creepy to hear these justifications from otherwise normal adults. It made you think, "What if they see me and my interests as 'the other'? What would they do without a conscience to stop them?"

Actually, that's a pretty good idea. Anyone who works in supply chain, switch to ordering directly from FTDI. They'll soon realize the folly in this decision.

The CH340G is really a nice and cheap chip. And I'm starting to see it in more established American designs too (as opposed to Chinese designed electronics).

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

[1] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux....

The manufacturer's website is http://wch.cn

Their drivers are here: http://wch.cn/index.php?s=/page-search_content-keyword-USB%E...

They don't appear to be open source, but I believe they are signed drivers for both Windows and OSX.

And that's the rub: if i get a legit ftdi chip, I have a high level of trust that it will do what it says, and there's tons of documentation.

Even after seeing them pull a stunt like this in their drivers?