Driver to drive?

[krw]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:49:18 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<hobbs@electrooptical.net> wrote:

On 4/17/2015 12:36 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17/04/2015 2:18 AM, Clocky wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/q4wgo8w

Interesting...

Added sci.electronics.design

"Danev said his company was in talks with several car manufacturers to
install a chip that can tell how far the key is from the car, thereby
defeating the power-amplifier trick."

We don't have details, but I'm a little sceptical that this would be the
solution it appears to be. While it's easy enough to send out a signal
and measure the response time, thus determining the distance, it's not
so easy to ensure that the responding device is the key fob.

Normally, the fob proves its identity by sending a code to the car. As
is apparent, this doesn't prevent the signal from being relayed. To
ensure that there's no relay, it would be necessary to measure the
response time of the entire code. The problem here is that it's not know
to any degree of accuracy what that should be - there's some variation
in the frequency used by the fob.

Measuring the time to the first edge of the response is no good - it may
be inserted by the relay device, with only subsequent edges being
relayed from the fob.

Perhaps the whole keyless entry concept is fundamentally flawed.

Sylvia.

The whole keyless entry thing is a solution looking for a problem, with
all sorts of unforeseen consequences. It's been a simple matter for
decades to build keys that make it very hard to pick a lock.

Most of us have had a flat battery more times than we've had our car
stolen, by a lot. Keyless systems make that very inconvenient indeed.

And anybody with any computer security nous whatsoever will tell you
that if somebody has physical access to your computer, all your IT
security is useless. Cars are the same way.

Keyless entry isn't about security, rather convenience. There is
still a physical key, at least with any car I've seen.

OTOH, the keyless entry lock on our Mustang convertible disables the
trunk release button, when activated. Handy.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:14:48 +0800) it happened Clocky
<notgonn@happen.com> wrote in <5531a1fb$0$11090$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>:

On 18/04/2015 1:50 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:38:24 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
02h2ja5rqqbi58en45c112nkkhgtt80k6o@4ax.com>:

I wonder if any of that nonsense can be turned off. The wipers are
especially annoying. There is a rain sensor that constantly, and
erroneously, second-guesses my wiper preferences. If I stop at a red
light, it stops wiping on, I guess, the theory that I don't need
wipers if I'm stopped. Nobody considered that I might want to see when
the light turns green.

It is probably the same situation as the programmers for Samsung TVs.
They do not get to use their work, because they simply get payed peanuts, and cannot afford it.
Without that feedback loop ...
This is my theory of course.



I dunno, my Samsung TV is probably the easiest to use in terms of
scanning the program guide compared to most others but it is a few years
old so maybe things have changed. The only issue is that it occasionally
loses the plot when scrolling though the program guide requiring a power
cycle to reset it but that is pretty rare.

Once .. I had a Philips tube color set.
It took much shorter to power up than my Samsung 3D HD internet whathaveyou TV.
When you switched the Philips on it was at the same channel you left it,
or VCR if you had selected that.
All functions worked (there were not many).

The Samslung produces, after a rather long time, a menu.
the remote is so not-responsive I bought a Chinese learning one and copied the commands I normally use.
In contrast to it claiming to be able to show programs with multi language selection
it cannot, and I had to write the soft for that myself (transport stream parser broken).
At irregular moments it switches on all by itself to 'see if there is a firmware update' I think.
The setting for sound cannot be changed unless you are actually playing some movie
in the from harddisk mode.
Have not been able to get it to record to harddisk..
Anyways it is hopeless, use in now to read from a connected 1TB disk,
that I put programs on I like that I have reformatted to the right size and system on the PC,
yes you guessed it no zoom or pan only 2 or 3 size selections,
never the right one for the format.
I can go on and on and on, and this was their high end set.
The sound is totally crap.
The interface connectors are the cheapest phono plugs (headphone out),
probably tinned, not gold.

On the subject of sound, the WORST sound I have ever heard is from my high end Samsung laptop.
Those guys simply do not have the slightest clue, really, NONE.
Just some moron with a CAD package putting speakers where there was still place.
and so on and so on.
They falsify reviews too.
Want some more?
hey, on the laptop if you close it, then the keys touch the LCD, and leave finger marks there.
maybe they had the wrong units in the CAD package?
LOL
That 3 hour battery was empty very fast too, while not even running anything.
The display powers up in low brightness mode if no connected to a charger,
so you cannot read the Linux bootup messages in normal daylight.
the ethernet connector is too low and constantly disconnects as when the thing
sits on the table the table pushes the pins away from the one in the laptop.
They saved on an extra phone connector for audio in / audio out,
there is only one.

I agree with Mr Kim from N Korea.
He should have done it long time ago,.

 

[krw]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:17:17 +1000, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

On 17/04/2015 14:36, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17/04/2015 2:18 AM, Clocky wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/q4wgo8w

Interesting...

Added sci.electronics.design

"Danev said his company was in talks with several car manufacturers to
install a chip that can tell how far the key is from the car, thereby
defeating the power-amplifier trick."

We don't have details, but I'm a little sceptical that this would be the
solution it appears to be. While it's easy enough to send out a signal
and measure the response time, thus determining the distance, it's not
so easy to ensure that the responding device is the key fob.

Normally, the fob proves its identity by sending a code to the car. As
is apparent, this doesn't prevent the signal from being relayed. To
ensure that there's no relay, it would be necessary to measure the
response time of the entire code. The problem here is that it's not know
to any degree of accuracy what that should be - there's some variation
in the frequency used by the fob.

Measuring the time to the first edge of the response is no good - it may
be inserted by the relay device, with only subsequent edges being
relayed from the fob.

Perhaps the whole keyless entry concept is fundamentally flawed.

Sylvia.






I missed the beginning of this thread wherever it is. Are you talking
about this?
https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/332.pdf

I have a theory that several times in history, some bright engineer at a
car company has come up with a much more secure immobilizer that will
greatly reduce car theft. That engineer is led away to a meeting with
HR, and offered a much higher paid job in the bumper polishing
department, and the secure immobilizer is quietly stashed away in the
cupboard with all the others.

Seriously, many people who have brand A car stolen will go right back to
the dealer with the insurance money, and buy exactly the same model of
car from brand A again. They don't have time to go through the hassle of
choosing a model of car again, just because of what some stranger did.
Every time that an immobilizer fails to do its job, very probably the
same car maker makes a fresh sale.

I suspect that a truly effective immobilizer would have a significant
negative impact on the profitability of a car manufacturer. What
percentage of new car purchases are to replace a stolen, recent model
car? Amongst people I know it is a high percentage (maybe 2 in 5, both
replacements were the same model that was stolen).

To the small extent that customers care about insurance costs due to the
risk of theft when choosing a car, the insurance ratings are probably
based on assessments by some "independent" group (Thatcham etc.) which
may well be box-ticking excercises where they get extra points for
securing against one method of entry whereas the other (more inventive)
ones are not even looked at because they didn't know it was possible.

I would really not trust any immobilizer that comes with the car - as
the incentives are all wrong. The only thing that would fix this
incentive would be for the car manufacturer to be automatically liable
for the vehicle replacement cost in the event that the keys are still in
your posession. I think that would rapidly improve immobilizers, and
they probably already have a cupboard full of good designs that they
have been suppressing.

Shiny side out!

 

[krw]

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:43:46 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 4/17/2015 9:12 AM, John Larkin wrote:

I wish I could turn off all the security "features" of my car. And a
bunch of other "intelligent" over-engineered, over-programmed things.
There is a low probability that my car will be stolen, but a good
probability that it will lock me out, or need to be towed to a dealer,
and a certainty that it will annoy me regularly.

I think many "car systems" are designed by third parties and slapped
together by the manufacturer. I'm not sure there is a consistent
design philosophy at play throughout the vehicle (let alone the
product line!)

No, they may be made by a third party but they're completely specified
by the OEM. I'm not sure why you would expect a consistent design
pilosophy, even within one (massive) company.

It locks the doors when it's in the mood, even if the key is in the
ignition, or the windows are open. The windshield wipers are insane.
The tire pressure warnings are frequent and bogus. HVAC is a maze of
black-on-black buttons and hidden states.

My pet peeves (SWMBO's vehicle) are:
- the "multifunction key/remote" (push the button once to unlock
driver side, twice to add passenger side to that, thrice to
roll down the windows). I can't count the number of times
I've walked up to the car to find the windows partially open
from some previous "button overpress".

That is dumb. Mine have the once-twice press for locks and often the
passenger side is still locked after two presses. The horn toots with
the second (and subsequent presses) so I always press until I hear it.
There is no guarantee that it'll be locked on the first press.
Connecting the windows to the button is dumb.

- the driver side window that rolls itself all the way up/down
if you hold the switch "too long"
- the automatic door locking. As you said, whatever algorithm
is employed is pretty much a mystery! When dropping books off
at the public library, I make a point of *not* closing the door
if I've left the ignition running (out of fear it will decide
to lock the door despite sensing "no presence" in the vehicle!)
- some of the rules for the various control systems. E.g., the
seat sensors try to detect the size of the occupant. If they
"guess wrong", the car often gets confused and reacts inappropriately.

Your insurance company must *love* you. NEVER leave the engine
runnign when you leave the car. Too much chance of theft, or
liability. Insurance companies may not cover you (check your coverage
statement).

Of course, there's no "reset, try again" button...
- the fact that the power windows are inoperative once a door has
been opened (with ignition off). Even if you were operating a
window at the time the door was opened!

OTOH, I *do* like the ability to command the doors to *lock*
repeatedly -- which results in a brief toot on the horn. Handy
for locating the car when you've forgotten in exactly which aisle
you've parked it!

There are a few "features" I stumbled on in the manual that
are too "non-intuitive" for me to comprehend without making a
very deliberate effort to explore their implementation(s).

I think a good deal of the problem comes from trying to cram too
many features into a "starved" user interface: press once for
this, twice for that, etc.

And, too many features of little value (neighbor's vehicle automatically
moves the steering column *up* to increase leg room when entering
and exiting the vehicle -- then returns it to the operator's specified
position in preparation for driving. Really? Is this necessary?
My God, how did you ever drive when steering columns were *fixed*??).

[Of course, the car also has a little "cooler" built in... don't know
how he ever managed to get to work without *that*, before! :> ]

Sounds like you need to buy a more suitable car.

 

[Ralph Barone]

<sroberts6328@gmail.com> wrote:

I used to have a certain model of a GM all-wheel drive SUV. I Came out
one morning to all windows down, all door locks popped open, and the
transmission audibly clicking.

The Battery had two dead cells.

Mind you, just removing the battery did not unlock it. Low battery
voltage far outside of the design range caused the fault.

I called work, walked a mile to the auto parts place, brought back a
battery and dropped it in. It started right up with no electrical system
faults when tested.

I came to the conclusion that a smart thief could have as many of
these he wanted to take. Especially if he partially shorted the battery from underneath
It did not take too long to figure out how he could do that with the cable arrangement.

I sold the SUV as quickly as possible.

Steve

Older Corvettes were vulnerable to a variation on this. Drill through the
(plastic) fender into the battery. Wait for the battery acid to drain. Come
back and tow the car away with nary a peep from the anti-theft system.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:14:48 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

On 18/04/2015 1:50 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:38:24 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
02h2ja5rqqbi58en45c112nkkhgtt80k6o@4ax.com>:

I wonder if any of that nonsense can be turned off. The wipers are
especially annoying. There is a rain sensor that constantly, and
erroneously, second-guesses my wiper preferences. If I stop at a red
light, it stops wiping on, I guess, the theory that I don't need
wipers if I'm stopped. Nobody considered that I might want to see when
the light turns green.

It is probably the same situation as the programmers for Samsung TVs.
They do not get to use their work, because they simply get payed peanuts, and cannot afford it.
Without that feedback loop ...
This is my theory of course.



I dunno, my Samsung TV is probably the easiest to use in terms of
scanning the program guide compared to most others but it is a few years
old so maybe things have changed. The only issue is that it occasionally
loses the plot when scrolling though the program guide requiring a power
cycle to reset it but that is pretty rare.

Our 40" Samsung in the bedroom is so easy to use that it turns itself
on in the middle of the night. No program (satellite box is off), no
sound, but it's a pretty bright night light.

 

[Clocky]

On 19/04/2015 7:51 AM, krw wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 08:14:48 +0800, Clocky <notgonn@happen.com> wrote:

On 18/04/2015 1:50 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 17 Apr 2015 10:38:24 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in
02h2ja5rqqbi58en45c112nkkhgtt80k6o@4ax.com>:

I wonder if any of that nonsense can be turned off. The wipers are
especially annoying. There is a rain sensor that constantly, and
erroneously, second-guesses my wiper preferences. If I stop at a red
light, it stops wiping on, I guess, the theory that I don't need
wipers if I'm stopped. Nobody considered that I might want to see when
the light turns green.

It is probably the same situation as the programmers for Samsung TVs.
They do not get to use their work, because they simply get payed peanuts, and cannot afford it.
Without that feedback loop ...
This is my theory of course.



I dunno, my Samsung TV is probably the easiest to use in terms of
scanning the program guide compared to most others but it is a few years
old so maybe things have changed. The only issue is that it occasionally
loses the plot when scrolling though the program guide requiring a power
cycle to reset it but that is pretty rare.

Our 40" Samsung in the bedroom is so easy to use that it turns itself
on in the middle of the night. No program (satellite box is off), no
sound, but it's a pretty bright night light.

Ours clicks from time to time, but other than that there is no night
light feature. I seem to remember reading that it scans for updates
periodically even when it is off.

 

[Sroberts@IlikeIR.null.net]

Find a home inspection company that has a hi res thermal imager at 3 microns or 10 microns. Heat the wall with a heat gun gently and image.

Steve

 

[piglet]

On 24/04/2015 15:45, N_Cook wrote:

Situation is wishing to read some black gloss-painted letters over white
emulsion painted plaster, but for a few decades has been covered by

Electrostatic detection apparatus ESDA as used for forensic examination
of paper indentations may also be worth investigating as alternative to IR?

piglet

 

Still waiting on IR torch, may try cone of heat and pyro

thermometer but would be nice to get a direct image rather than having
to plot pyro readings

an ordinary TV remote control may serve you as a pulsed IR source.

Mark

 

hello friend

its satender. i am doing pfc Boost converter for input voltage 90 VAC and output voltage 400VDC for Pin=280W.

the problem i am facing is

1. i connected boost converter to the output of the bridge rectifier. since IC is not able to produce the pulses for the mosfet, so converter is not working along with that output of the rectifier gets clipped. any solution?

hope that you will find it soon
regards

 

Hi,
I saw your message after 12 years, I have one. For any details you could contact me.
Luke

On Saturday, March 30, 2002 at 5:15:02 PM UTC-5, Jim Howson wrote:

I'm looking for a schematic diagram for a Trio Integrated Amp made for
Kenwood. The model number is KW200G. It is probably from the mid 1960's.

The schematic diagram will have 4 6BQ5's as the output tubes, 2 6N8's for
the drivers and 3 12AX7 control tubes.

Does anybody have any information on this or know where I can get the
schematics?

Thanks
Jim

 

[Phil Hobbs]

If you're lucky, the paint might be electrically conductive. (My fave Krylon #1609 is.)

Then an induction coil to heat it plus a thermal camera to see the warm spots might be the ticket.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 8:51:11 AM UTC-7, DaveC wrote:

I want to experiment a little with Arduino. Apparently I need to install FTDI
serial drivers to communicate with the Arduino board. 

Išm quite wary about bricking my Arduino, remembering the recent FTDI driver
scandal. (Who knows by sight which chips are legitimate and which are
counterfeit?) ::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTDI#Driver_controversy

Is it safe to install the FTDI driver for OS X listed on FTDIšs download
page? ::

http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm

If not, where to get drivers for OS X? 

Thanks,
Dave

Making drivers that do not work on fake chips is a good thing.

Just hope you do not have fake FTDI chips in your stuff.

Find out first if it's fake, then proceed when you find out it's not fake.

 

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 12:13:41 PM UTC-7, John Devereux wrote:

rev.11d.meow@gmail.com writes:

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 8:51:11 AM UTC-7, DaveC wrote:
I want to experiment a little with Arduino. Apparently I need to install FTDI
serial drivers to communicate with the Arduino board. 

Išm quite wary about bricking my Arduino, remembering the recent FTDI driver
scandal. (Who knows by sight which chips are legitimate and which are
counterfeit?) ::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTDI#Driver_controversy

Is it safe to install the FTDI driver for OS X listed on FTDIšs download
page? ::

http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm

If not, where to get drivers for OS X? 

Thanks,
Dave

Making drivers that do not work on fake chips is a good thing.

Just hope you do not have fake FTDI chips in your stuff.

"just hope"?


Find out first if it's fake, then proceed when you find out it's not fake.

How do I find out if it is fake, exactly? We got an unusually good deal
on FT232R from RS components in the UK. They were half the price they
were normally, we built them in to a few hundred instruments that sell
for $10,000 each. Were they fake? Are they all going to get permanently
bricked with the next windows update? From our customers point of view,
how are they supposed to know whether the instruments have fake chips
before they buy them? *I* don't know, and I bought the chips!

No more FTDI for us.

Then make your own drivers that do not zero-out the ID in your chips.

I am sure your argument is with your vendor if yours are fake chips, not FTDI.

half price? 1st clue

 

[John Devereux]

rev.11d.meow@gmail.com writes:

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 8:51:11 AM UTC-7, DaveC wrote:
I want to experiment a little with Arduino. Apparently I need to install FTDI
serial drivers to communicate with the Arduino board. 

Išm quite wary about bricking my Arduino, remembering the recent FTDI driver
scandal. (Who knows by sight which chips are legitimate and which are
counterfeit?) ::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTDI#Driver_controversy

Is it safe to install the FTDI driver for OS X listed on FTDIšs download
page? ::

http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm

If not, where to get drivers for OS X? 

Thanks,
Dave

Making drivers that do not work on fake chips is a good thing.

Just hope you do not have fake FTDI chips in your stuff.

"just hope"?

Find out first if it's fake, then proceed when you find out it's not fake.

How do I find out if it is fake, exactly? We got an unusually good deal
on FT232R from RS components in the UK. They were half the price they
were normally, we built them in to a few hundred instruments that sell
for $10,000 each. Were they fake? Are they all going to get permanently
bricked with the next windows update? From our customers point of view,
how are they supposed to know whether the instruments have fake chips
before they buy them? *I* don't know, and I bought the chips!

No more FTDI for us.

--

John Devereux

 

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 12:28:48 AM UTC-7, John Devereux wrote:

rev.11d.meow@gmail.com writes:

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 12:13:41 PM UTC-7, John Devereux wrote:
rev.11d.meow@gmail.com writes:

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 8:51:11 AM UTC-7, DaveC wrote:
I want to experiment a little with Arduino. Apparently I need to install FTDI
serial drivers to communicate with the Arduino board. 

Išm quite wary about bricking my Arduino, remembering the recent FTDI driver
scandal. (Who knows by sight which chips are legitimate and which are
counterfeit?) ::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTDI#Driver_controversy

Is it safe to install the FTDI driver for OS X listed on FTDIšs download
page? ::

http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm

If not, where to get drivers for OS X? 

Thanks,
Dave

Making drivers that do not work on fake chips is a good thing.

Just hope you do not have fake FTDI chips in your stuff.

"just hope"?


Find out first if it's fake, then proceed when you find out it's not fake.

How do I find out if it is fake, exactly? We got an unusually good deal
on FT232R from RS components in the UK. They were half the price they
were normally, we built them in to a few hundred instruments that sell
for $10,000 each. Were they fake? Are they all going to get permanently
bricked with the next windows update? From our customers point of view,
how are they supposed to know whether the instruments have fake chips
before they buy them? *I* don't know, and I bought the chips!

No more FTDI for us.


Then make your own drivers that do not zero-out the ID in your chips.

But that would have required me predicting that FTDI would ever have
done such a stupid, self-destructive thing.

And it would be very hard for us since we would need to figure out the
chip internals, windows driver details, driver signing, passing
microsoft hardware compatibility testing etc. etc. The *whole point* of
FTDI is that they are for those who do not want to write their own
drivers! Otherwise we could have written our own USB code in the
microcontroller from the beginning and saved the $2.

I am sure your argument is with your vendor if yours are fake chips,
not FTDI.

My argument would be with both. And where would that get me? You think
either of them would refund the $millions? RS would refund the price of
the chips if I was lucky, same with any other distributor.

half price? 1st clue

RS UK are not some grey-market bottom feeder. They are one of the top
component distributors in the UK, *the* top one historically, they were
the first major one AFAIK. They are historically overpriced,
concentrating on smaller users. In fact they started selling to
one-man-band TV repair shops and the like. RS = "Radio Spares". But in
recent years they occasionally want to try a lot harder and will do
volume quotes that are competitive for some lines.

But I should always insist on paying their list price, right? And that
will help?

In fact I think we are OK, we had no problem reports during the time the
drivers were live. I believe the chips were genuine, I have no problem
with RS and I think we just got a good deal.

FTDI pulled the update after the backlash (although I don't know how
things have changed since then). But the possibility remains they could
do it again *at any time* in the future and potentially brick millions
of dollars worth of products.

We would never be safe.

Yep, it's a way-touchy situation, what with the apparent destruction of fake chips and all.

If your outfit is reputable, most likely you just got a really good deal.

Are your ICs Laser-Etched nomenclature labeling or printed?

If printed, start crying.

If not, good on ya, probably real FTDI chips. yay


Sorry to be a butt about this, but I am the go-to guy at Windows 7 Driver Testing for Technical Beta (now known as Preview) folks.

One guy submitted a bug against the drivers for an amateur radio device that happened to use an FTDI USB<->RS-232 converter IC.

He insisted the drivers come from FTDI for this 'oddball' unit that maybe sold a few thousand planet-wide, which is way below the bar for getting a fix for the drivers inbox for distribution on Windows 7 RTM various SKUs' media, both Retail and for the OEMs.

So the bug gets bounced back to me as Won't Fix "Too Few Customers" and I just went ape-shit, knowing this is just the tip of the iceberg for the drivers for this literally _billions_ of other FTDI USB<->RS-232 IC customers.

So as per my usual, took it to the boss and said hey this is huge, make them fix it, and he said SHIT & SHINOLA, Rich! You got a big one on the line here.

So he jammed it back down devs' throats and they fixed it and the rest of them also.

So the FTDI drivers made it 'inbox' for Win7 RTM, yay.

Anyways, sad but true, these are times of WAR on way too many channels and FTDI went to war on this one.

FAKE ICs MUST DIE!

And FTDI changes the Dev ID for Fake Chips and that is that.

You can program it back in the chip and modify the inf to make it work, supposedly.

But who'd trust a Fake FTDI IC?

 

[John Devereux]

rev.11d.meow@gmail.com writes:

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 12:13:41 PM UTC-7, John Devereux wrote:
rev.11d.meow@gmail.com writes:

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 8:51:11 AM UTC-7, DaveC wrote:
I want to experiment a little with Arduino. Apparently I need to install FTDI
serial drivers to communicate with the Arduino board. 

Išm quite wary about bricking my Arduino, remembering the recent FTDI driver
scandal. (Who knows by sight which chips are legitimate and which are
counterfeit?) ::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTDI#Driver_controversy

Is it safe to install the FTDI driver for OS X listed on FTDIšs download
page? ::

http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm

If not, where to get drivers for OS X? 

Thanks,
Dave

Making drivers that do not work on fake chips is a good thing.

Just hope you do not have fake FTDI chips in your stuff.

"just hope"?


Find out first if it's fake, then proceed when you find out it's not fake.

How do I find out if it is fake, exactly? We got an unusually good deal
on FT232R from RS components in the UK. They were half the price they
were normally, we built them in to a few hundred instruments that sell
for $10,000 each. Were they fake? Are they all going to get permanently
bricked with the next windows update? From our customers point of view,
how are they supposed to know whether the instruments have fake chips
before they buy them? *I* don't know, and I bought the chips!

No more FTDI for us.


Then make your own drivers that do not zero-out the ID in your chips.

But that would have required me predicting that FTDI would ever have
done such a stupid, self-destructive thing.

And it would be very hard for us since we would need to figure out the
chip internals, windows driver details, driver signing, passing
microsoft hardware compatibility testing etc. etc. The *whole point* of
FTDI is that they are for those who do not want to write their own
drivers! Otherwise we could have written our own USB code in the
microcontroller from the beginning and saved the $2.

I am sure your argument is with your vendor if yours are fake chips,
not FTDI.

My argument would be with both. And where would that get me? You think
either of them would refund the $millions? RS would refund the price of
the chips if I was lucky, same with any other distributor.

> half price? 1st clue

RS UK are not some grey-market bottom feeder. They are one of the top
component distributors in the UK, *the* top one historically, they were
the first major one AFAIK. They are historically overpriced,
concentrating on smaller users. In fact they started selling to
one-man-band TV repair shops and the like. RS = "Radio Spares". But in
recent years they occasionally want to try a lot harder and will do
volume quotes that are competitive for some lines.

But I should always insist on paying their list price, right? And that
will help?

In fact I think we are OK, we had no problem reports during the time the
drivers were live. I believe the chips were genuine, I have no problem
with RS and I think we just got a good deal.

FTDI pulled the update after the backlash (although I don't know how
things have changed since then). But the possibility remains they could
do it again *at any time* in the future and potentially brick millions
of dollars worth of products.

We would never be safe.

--

John Devereux

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 04:17:06 -0700 (PDT), the renowned
rev.11d.meow@gmail.com wrote:

FAKE ICs MUST DIE!

And FTDI changes the Dev ID for Fake Chips and that is that.

You can program it back in the chip and modify the inf to make it work, supposedly.

But who'd trust a Fake FTDI IC?

Maybe a real CH340 from WCH in Nanjing is better?

--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition: http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8
Microchip link for 2015 Masters in Phoenix: http://tinyurl.com/l7g2k48

 

[John Devereux]

rev.11d.meow@gmail.com writes:

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 12:28:48 AM UTC-7, John Devereux wrote:
rev.11d.meow@gmail.com writes:

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 12:13:41 PM UTC-7, John Devereux wrote:
rev.11d.meow@gmail.com writes:

On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 8:51:11 AM UTC-7, DaveC wrote:
I want to experiment a little with Arduino. Apparently I need to install FTDI
serial drivers to communicate with the Arduino board. 

Išm quite wary about bricking my Arduino, remembering the recent FTDI driver
scandal. (Who knows by sight which chips are legitimate and which are
counterfeit?) ::

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTDI#Driver_controversy

Is it safe to install the FTDI driver for OS X listed on FTDIšs download
page? ::

http://www.ftdichip.com/Drivers/VCP.htm

If not, where to get drivers for OS X? 

Thanks,
Dave

Making drivers that do not work on fake chips is a good thing.

Just hope you do not have fake FTDI chips in your stuff.

"just hope"?


Find out first if it's fake, then proceed when you find out it's not fake.

How do I find out if it is fake, exactly? We got an unusually good deal
on FT232R from RS components in the UK. They were half the price they
were normally, we built them in to a few hundred instruments that sell
for $10,000 each. Were they fake? Are they all going to get permanently
bricked with the next windows update? From our customers point of view,
how are they supposed to know whether the instruments have fake chips
before they buy them? *I* don't know, and I bought the chips!

No more FTDI for us.


Then make your own drivers that do not zero-out the ID in your chips.

But that would have required me predicting that FTDI would ever have
done such a stupid, self-destructive thing.

And it would be very hard for us since we would need to figure out the
chip internals, windows driver details, driver signing, passing
microsoft hardware compatibility testing etc. etc. The *whole point* of
FTDI is that they are for those who do not want to write their own
drivers! Otherwise we could have written our own USB code in the
microcontroller from the beginning and saved the $2.

I am sure your argument is with your vendor if yours are fake chips,
not FTDI.

My argument would be with both. And where would that get me? You think
either of them would refund the $millions? RS would refund the price of
the chips if I was lucky, same with any other distributor.

half price? 1st clue

RS UK are not some grey-market bottom feeder. They are one of the top
component distributors in the UK, *the* top one historically, they were
the first major one AFAIK. They are historically overpriced,
concentrating on smaller users. In fact they started selling to
one-man-band TV repair shops and the like. RS = "Radio Spares". But in
recent years they occasionally want to try a lot harder and will do
volume quotes that are competitive for some lines.

But I should always insist on paying their list price, right? And that
will help?

In fact I think we are OK, we had no problem reports during the time the
drivers were live. I believe the chips were genuine, I have no problem
with RS and I think we just got a good deal.

FTDI pulled the update after the backlash (although I don't know how
things have changed since then). But the possibility remains they could
do it again *at any time* in the future and potentially brick millions
of dollars worth of products.

We would never be safe.



Yep, it's a way-touchy situation, what with the apparent destruction of fake chips and all.

If your outfit is reputable, most likely you just got a really good deal.

Are your ICs Laser-Etched nomenclature labeling or printed?

If printed, start crying.

If not, good on ya, probably real FTDI chips. yay

They are all out in product now but I did not notice anything wrong with
them at the time.

Sorry to be a butt about this, but I am the go-to guy at Windows 7
Driver Testing for Technical Beta (now known as Preview) folks.

Really? Thank for dropping by.

One guy submitted a bug against the drivers for an amateur radio
device that happened to use an FTDI USB<->RS-232 converter IC.

He insisted the drivers come from FTDI for this 'oddball' unit that
maybe sold a few thousand planet-wide, which is way below the bar for
getting a fix for the drivers inbox for distribution on Windows 7 RTM
various SKUs' media, both Retail and for the OEMs.

So the bug gets bounced back to me as Won't Fix "Too Few Customers"
and I just went ape-shit, knowing this is just the tip of the iceberg
for the drivers for this literally _billions_ of other FTDI
USB<->RS-232 IC customers.

So as per my usual, took it to the boss and said hey this is huge,
make them fix it, and he said SHIT & SHINOLA, Rich! You got a big one
on the line here.

So he jammed it back down devs' throats and they fixed it and the rest of them also.

So the FTDI drivers made it 'inbox' for Win7 RTM, yay.

In my experience it always has to go online and download them "windows
update" but perhaps we modified the config registers or something.

Anyways, sad but true, these are times of WAR on way too many channels
and FTDI went to war on this one.

They are not allowed to do that since they are not a nation-state...

FAKE ICs MUST DIE!

And FTDI changes the Dev ID for Fake Chips and that is that.

....specifically, I am pretty sure that intentionally destroying a
competitors product is a crime in most places. Especially when it is
"with a computer" which seems to elevate the offense these days and
bring in laws introduced in the name of national security but used to
prosecute j.random.hacker. For sure if a private individual did it they
would be in jail. FTDI can make all the arguments they like about
intellectual property but that does not give them the right to
extrajudicially damage end-user equipment.

Probably why they pulled back on it so quickly.

You can program it back in the chip and modify the inf to make it work, supposedly.

But who'd trust a Fake FTDI IC?

--

John Devereux