Why are the two options you present either to a) fully engineer and qa the driver to work with every possible counterfeit, or b) to insert malicious code to brick counterfeits? Seems like kind of a false dilemma.
What you are calling "malicious code" could --and likely is-- quality control code.
The fact that fakes fail isn't the responsibility of the legitimate manufacturer.
I don't know how many hypothetical examples I have to concoct to drive the point home.
OK, here's another one. Fake Tesla. The real Tesla writes code that bricks the entire fake car. This is 100% pro-consumer. The fake Tesla could literally kill people.
What you guys are arguing for is that Tesla should ensure that fakes are able to function. And, at the extremes, that Tesla is responsible for their proper function and safety.
Sure, and fake Tesla just happens to be bricked while it's driving in the fast lane of a motorway, or is accidentally bricked because a bug triggered the kill switch. Think about that for a moment.
...and it never occurred to you that a hypothetical is just a thinking tool rather than an absolute.
OK, I'll play your game. The car would not turn on after being parked somewhere for four hours. Only an idiot software developer would brick it at high speed on the Autobahn.
That's what FTDI did though. They pushed the malicious bricking driver through an automatic Windows Update to systems already running in production, no? That's pretty much the equivalent of going at high speed on the Autobahn.
I really don't know how Windows' automatic upgrades work, but I would be baffled if an UART driver was updated on-the-fly while it's being used.
If I receive constant 1Mbps stream, the PLL doesn't even have time to stop/start? Or drivers are supposed to handle upgrade hand-off? Sounds crazy complicated, and I don't see the point of such a feature
What you are calling "malicious code" could --and likely is-- quality control code.
The fact that fakes fail isn't the responsibility of the legitimate manufacturer.
I don't know how many hypothetical examples I have to concoct to drive the point home.
OK, here's another one. Fake Tesla. The real Tesla writes code that bricks the entire fake car. This is 100% pro-consumer. The fake Tesla could literally kill people.
What you guys are arguing for is that Tesla should ensure that fakes are able to function. And, at the extremes, that Tesla is responsible for their proper function and safety.
Think about that for a moment.