Really Prolific?

Unless I&#x27;m misunderstanding, this isn&#x27;t bricking the device. The driver is refusing to allow it to work, sure, but it doesn&#x27;t damage the chip itself in any way. The reason the FTDI incident back in 2014 blew up was because the FTDI driver didn&#x27;t just refuse to work - it reprogrammed the USB PID on counterfeit&#x2F;cloned chips to 0, which actually prevented them from working on any host (looking back at articles from that time, it looks like you could fix it by downloading the FT32 config tool from FTDI, but the important point is that the driver was effectively damaging the chips).<p>I really don&#x27;t see the issue with drivers developed by a hardware company to support their hardware refusing to work with other hardware. I recognize that it creates problems for innocent end users when they do it, but Prolific just doesn&#x27;t have any obligations to the end-users of other manufacturers&#x27; chips. Refusing to operate (rather than reprogramming the chips like FTDI&#x27;s solution did) seems like a completely reasonable path to me.

Josip is being hyperbolic. This does not brick or change his devices.<p>I am going to defend Prolific here and say they are probably doing the right thing. I use FTDI, Prolific, and other similar serial adapters on a daily basis and Chinese ripoffs are a problem. I want to know right away if the device I bought is a fake.<p>The people selling the devices, usually Chinese vendors on Aliexpress or Amazon, DON&#x27;T CARE that they are selling fakes, and probably even know they are selling fakes.<p>The only way Prolific can get these guys to stop is to get the end-user pissed off enough to do returns and leave negative reviews. Aliexpress sure isn&#x27;t going to take their listings down, and Amazon has proven they don&#x27;t care either (actually they demand bribes to take fake merch down).<p>Josip&#x27;s anger is misdirected. He bought a cheap fake chip, knows it, and wants his free ride.

&gt; PPS: In meantime, you can download the older driver (v3.8.39.0 worked for me) and use it instead.<p>This implies that the fake IC isn&#x27;t being bricked and will work with Linux, etc. after the new Windows driver has communicated with it. It appears the Windows driver refuses to communicate with the IC.

&gt; For me the concept of bricking device owned by an unsuspected user is a bridge too far.<p>Its also highly illegal, in the EU, at least as far as I know.<p>(Assuming they brick instead of just block the device) It&#x27;s destruction of the user property, nothing less.<p>If it&#x27;s &quot;just&quot; deciding to make their driver not work with 3rd party devices then it&#x27;s legal, though. But highly offensive anyway as even the producer of the device using the USB chip might not know they are using a potential copyright&#x2F;patent infringing chip.

I&#x27;d just be happy to find a USB to RS-232 adapter using either a Prolific or FTDI chip that just worked. Even non-fake chips are famously flaky. It sort of blows my mind that the supposedly &quot;better&quot; serial evolution in USB can&#x27;t even get RS-232 communication right. In my experience, it&#x27;s best if the RS-232 communication is done on hardware as much as possible and then communicated to a computer with Ethernet or another device&#x27;s actually usable USB driver than to rely on a Prolific or FTDI chip. Relying on these USB to RS-232 converters for anything other than desktop prototyping is a recipe for something not working.

Fake and counterfeit chips &amp; products are scourge of our industry. Their shady manufacturers put the customers at risk and put the original manufacturers in an impossible position. I don’t envy the position Prolific is in. Whatever we can do to put the fakers out of business is good!

&gt; PS: And yes, FTDI did say they saw the error of their ways back in 2014. Only to pull the same shit again in 2016. They learned nothing. Chances are neither will Prolific.<p>Corporate institutional memories can be remarkably short.

Ah yes, in our lab we have a 250k eur whole microscope slide scanner stuck on some old win 7 version (and consequently isolated from the network) because of this (it’s now 8 y&#x2F;o?). Really nice experience.

I believe macOS, Linux, and Windows now all come with standard CDC (USB Serial) drivers built-in, so typically there&#x27;s no need to install drivers from FTDI, Prolific or anyone else. Or am I missing something here?

Why is it technically possible for Microsoft to update drivers without user consent? This is a deliberate RCE vulnerability with kernel privileges.

This sort of problem inspired GNU

MS should take away their keys.

Yawn.<p>The author ditched Prolific because the drivers were garbage. They went with FTDI. Then went back to Prolific because FTDI was bricking fake chips. The impression I got is that the author has no intent of even trying to return the counterfeit.<p>Perhaps instead of whinging about the drivers he should be engaging whatever vendors about their subpar supply chain.