|
|
|
|
|
|
by marcan_42
1652 days ago
|
|
|
The converse: they performed EEPROM writes in a way that was ignored by that particular chip from FTDI (only one - it would've bricked other FTDI products) but honored by the clones. They exploited a bug in their own product to make their bricking code only affect the (non-buggy) clones. The code was blatantly deliberate; to pull this off they had to perform a preimage attack on the EEPROM checksum, etc. |
|
|