Slashdot Mirror


Free Software Will Help Detect Faulty and Malicious USB-C Cables

Reader Mickeycaskill writes: The USB 3.0 Promoter Group, of which HP, Intel and Microsoft are members, has developed authentication protocols for USB-C and will offer free software to detect faulty or malicious cables.This tool will alert users if they are using a non-authenticated cable. It has been suggested that hardware manufacturers could ship devices with an authentication system already installed. It is hoped that the specification will help end a number of recent incidents where sub-standard cables have either ripped off buyers or damaged devices. Most recently, Amazon said it would be adding USB-C cables and adapters that do not comply with standard regulations to its list of prohibited electronics items.

113 comments

  1. Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is nice until someone finds 387 different remotely exploitable security vulnerabilities in it which can be used to remotely compromise your system, or worse, delete all your cat photos.

    1. Re:Free! by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

      Which is nice until someone [exploits these cables to] delete all your cat photos.

      No, you're thinking of Cat Negative One cables.

    2. Re:Free! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      just don't try using crossover cables! it may convert your cat into a dog.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Free! by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      If the cat feels it really should be a dog there is nothing wrong with that.

    4. Re:Free! by trevc · · Score: 1

      If the cat feels it really should be a dog there is nothing wrong with that.

      But should it still use the litter tray?

    5. Re:Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it resides in the state of North Carolina, in which case it must confirm to it's birth species.

      --sf

    6. Re:Free! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      There should be a litter tray outdoors, too. To accommodate the cat that insists it's a dog and will only shit outdoors, but also insists on clean clay-based (or clumping, on special request) litter to shit in.

  2. Software to detect bad cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm... Isn't the point to detect the bad cables *before* you plug them into your computer. If it detects afterward, hasn't it already blown up your computer?

    1. Re: Software to detect bad cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah, you just use a low voltage and current until it's authenticated

      What I don't get is couldn't anyone just read the spec and make an "authenticated" cable?

    2. Re: Software to detect bad cables? by raburton · · Score: 1

      I think that's the point, read the spec and make a cable to the spec, i.e. a good cable. Or do you mean just read the bit of the spec that does the authentication and then still use bad wire? Probably not worth the effort of only doing half a decent job rather than going the full way, hopefully anyway.

    3. Re: Software to detect bad cables? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      until it's authenticated

      Until what's authenticated? That it's a cable? I've read the USB press release and a few other articles and there's no indication anywhere as to what this "authentication" is authenticating. If I take an authentic USB 3.0 cable with authentication and authentically send 10,000 authentic volts down it, does it authentically help the authentic owner of the authentically fried device to know that it's been authentically authenticated?

    4. Re: Software to detect bad cables? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      That will depend a lot on how easy it is to spoof the authentication.

      And it makes me wonder if this also could become a way of locking cheaper, but still legit cable makers out of the market.

      So, again, much depends on the implementation.

    5. Re:Software to detect bad cables? by nazsco · · Score: 1

      You are thinking about the one that fried some googler laptop.

      This has NOTHING to do with it.

      it will continue to fry your computer. This has to do with the fact that the cable itself now has a processor, like the lightning cable. or a usb hub.

      This code, which they will force on the kernel upstream i bet, will make sure that the image running there is from some trusted vendor. Something like calling an API getVendorID and then the chip on the cable would return "copyrighted string ABC" so that they can sue manufacturers not paying the USB group fees, while not protecting you at all.

      Now, if they had a tester device on the other end and they could try to detect any time skew from data going from one end to another, they could in theory detect man-in-middle attacks, which is all a cable can do... but i doubt that is the case.

    6. Re: Software to detect bad cables? by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      USB Type C cables aren't just wire. "Full-featured type-C cables are active, electronically marked cables that contain a chip with an ID function based on the configuration channel and vendor-defined messages (VDMs) from the USB Power Delivery 2.0 specification." (from Wikipedia).

      The non-compliant cables that were being sold on Amazon probably don't contain spec-compliant chips, and that is something the testing software can check. A compliant cable still won't prevent damage if you connect a 10,000 volt source to it, but it will prevent some damage that can happen with non-compliant cables. Other possible problems with the non-compliant cables (that software would not be able to check for) would include out of spec connectors (the connector pitch of USB-C is rather fine so the connectors have to be manufactured to close tolerances) or wire that is too thin.

    7. Re: Software to detect bad cables? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I presume that authentication would mean plugging in the both ends of the USB cable into a test device which has a light per cable. If there was any cross wiring, open wire or short, the cable would be rejected.

      I am not sure that measurements would include frequency response (capacitance leakages).

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  3. Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables and by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Apple can use this to lock in
    $20-$30 cables
    $30-$50 USB3 TB / MINIDP to DVI / VGA / HDMI.
    $20 USB3c to USB.
    $30 USB3 to GIG-E.

  4. What the heck is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon? Like the women? SJW.

  5. Of the 825 USB group members... by Junta · · Score: 1

    Why bother to name those particular three?

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Of the 825 USB group members... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They probably paid the most for the press release

  6. What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'Non-authenticated cables'?! what dystopian hell have I awoken in?!

    1. Re:What?! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      You are aware of the work of Benson Leung, a Google engineer who has been doing his own testing on USB C cables and found many of them do not meet the standard specifications and are considered dangerous. He himself fried his computer trying to test them as a sign of how bad the problem is today.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, the 1970s?

      http://www.tek.com/support/faqs/what-tekprobe-interface

    3. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12 pins per side? What idiots designed this over-complicated piece of shit? Never mind. Found the answer.

    4. Re:What?! by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      These things are not just used to charge your phone 'ya know. The standard includes "DisplayPort over USB-C" among other things.

    5. Re:What?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the age of authenticated cables, where not only the Computers and Monitors must support encrypted content negotiation but so must the Connecting Cables.

  7. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    Apple already has a hardware-based authentication baked into the MacBook that supports USB-C, so this software-based approach won't really change anything for them. All it may do is help USB-C become more widely-adopted, which is something we should all want, given the benefits it provides over its predecessors.

    As for Apple making ridiculously expensive dongles and adapters, they'll do that regardless of any sort of lock-in. Just look at Lightning cables. You can buy MFi (Made for iPhone) Lightning cables from Amazon Basics or other third-parties that are fully licensed and certified, yet Apple still sells their own Lightning cables for significantly more. This authentication protocol doesn't change a thing as far as Apple adapters and dongles go.

  8. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Er what? You do realize that Apple already owns the patents and designs to their own Lightning cables right? As such they can change whatever they want for their own cables. You also realize that USB C is an industry standard controlled by consortium company that Apple does not own as well, right? How they hell can Apple lock in someone else's standard, again? Sure Apple can charge $20 for USB-C cables like Monster charges $100 for an HDMI cable but that does not make it a lock-in.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  9. why are we cheering DRM? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2

    People get tired of USB being affordable and pine for a more Firewire-type system?

    Why are we hoping for authenticated cables?

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:why are we cheering DRM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because shady manufacturers have been making USB cables that are mis-wired sufficiently to destroy connected devices.

    2. Re:why are we cheering DRM? by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. What we actually need is cheap hardware testers, available at any store so the consumer can test the cables before bringing them home. Online stores could state more confidently their cables were actually tested too.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    3. Re:why are we cheering DRM? by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Informative

      People get tired of USB being affordable and pine for a more Firewire-type system?

      Why are we hoping for authenticated cables?

      It's not really DRM. The "authentication" information is more an informational block - like EDID in monitors, SPD in memory modules and such.

      The reason is it allows for smarter management. A USB-C charger can provide up to 100W of power, but you need some way of telling the device that it's available, and the current methods are generally quite... crappy. But you also don't want to have the charger implement a full USB stack. So you implement this mechanism and it tells you how much power you can draw. And if you use a crappy USB cable that doesn't put in the resistors correctly, you could detect that as well and charge at the agonizingly slow rate, while displaying a dialog to change the cable to a certified one because it's wired incorrectly.

      Basically this whole thing stemmed from that Google guy reviewing all the USB-C cables out there, and finding a huge number of them were pretty awful and resulting in crippled charger performance, if the devices could charge at all.

      It's less about tying products and accessories together and more about being able to tell the user that the $1 USB-C cable they bought is incorrectly manufactured and to expect problems like slow charging or slow data transfers.

    4. Re:why are we cheering DRM? by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      This isn't about DRM, it's about having a cable that respects the spec. When the spec was low-power, low-risk (like USB2), it wasn't that bad to have a bad cable, but USB3 can deliver over 100W. A bad cable can start fires.

    5. Re:why are we cheering DRM? by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      It's not DRM. Cables that support the more advanced features of USB-C (such as super speed, alternate modes, high power delivery levels etc) have a small microcontroller inside them which informs the host about what the cable is able to do. This is not required for cables that only support USB low/full/high speed. If this was not present, then a host can't decide whether the cable connecting it to the device is going to fry if it sends 50W of power down it. But the cable just reports and ID and capabilities descriptor. You can make your own cables that do this, and the complete details of the communications protocol is listed on the freely available USB-C spec.

      The problem here is that shady manufacturers are saving money by not implementing this function properly. This means the cables are either missing the active component so are unable to do what people thought they would be able to do, or are downright dangerous because they report that they can deliver lots of power when the physical wires are not large enough. The thing is that both these things are very easy for a retailer to check for, but I think the main issue is that the standard is so new that many manufacturers/retailers are simply being lazy.

    6. Re:why are we cheering DRM? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 2

      The whole thing stemmed from the standards body, creating a USB 3.0, AND a USB 3.1 Spec, along with Cables being allowed to only conform to select parts the USB 3/3.1 spec, along with the Lightning Cable coopting the USB 3.1 form-factor, The non-full spec cables will have an icon or two different on the box (if it even has a retail box) and will be visually indistinguishable from cables that actually implement the whole 3.1 spec also indistinguishable to 3.0 cables that fully implement the 3.0 spec.

    7. Re:why are we cheering DRM? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The hardware testing functionality could be added into the actual devices that use the cable. So you plug in sketchy cable X and your device measures performance and rejects using it.

      Instead, this is sounding more like a whitelist deal.

    8. Re:why are we cheering DRM? by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      It doesn't justify the cost... you only need to test the cable once, when you're buying it. If your work involves dealing with lots of cables, then buy a tester.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    9. Re:why are we cheering DRM? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      We see thumb drives with firmware written to lie about their capacity and throw away data. Why would we expect this to not be spoofed? And how is software going to validate a cable without it being plugged in -- at which point the damage may have already been done?

  10. WTF by NotInHere · · Score: 1

    For me, this currently seems like a joint venture of trying to get cheap competition out of the market: you must join the cartel in order to be "certified", but once you are, you can do what you want.

    There is no additional protection for the user who doesn't trust that cartel.

    What about not auto-mounting a smartphone? You don't need to mount anything when you connect to a charging device. Also helps if you connect your smartphone to a stranger's computer to charge it.

    You would still need encryption if you indeed want to protect from malicious USB cables between the smartphone and the device, but the only secure way to do it is how adb does it: with device unique private keys for both devices, and asking for authorisation at the smartphone's side. Very simple.

    It can be even improved by displaying a QR code at the screen of the laptop/PC, you only need to scan it with the smartphone, done.

    1. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about not auto-mounting a smartphone?

      There issue here is that there are cables that are not electrically correct and have been known to fry the USB port of the connected device. That said, one of those bad cables will likely keep your smartphone from automounting(or doing anything else).

    2. Re:WTF by scdeimos · · Score: 2

      The issue here is that the USB group is engaging in anti-competitive practices by scaring users who dare to use non-authenticated USB cables. Printer manufacturers have been doing the same with ink cartridges for years, nobody stomped on them, now it's going to happen with USB cables. No doubt others will follow their lead.

  11. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever advantage USB-C provides, I can live without. In fact I do...and I am happy.

  12. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life is already complicated. Do you think I have time to authenticate my cables? The USB I use today is good enough and I don't have to think about it.

  13. Mallicous? by Virtucon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So the cables are deliberately causing fault or do you mean the manufacturers? It's hard for me to believe than an inanimate object has malicious intent.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    1. Re:Mallicous? by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      Pedantic isn't us?

    2. Re:Mallicous? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Well I'm talking specifics. I mean the next thing I'll read on slashdot is that "USB C cables leap out of drawers and strangle their owners"

      That would be malicious and a boring sci-fi story. Wait they made two sharknado movies, never mine.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    3. Re:Mallicous? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      So the cables are deliberately causing fault or do you mean the manufacturers? It's hard for me to believe than an inanimate object has malicious intent.

      Or maybe it wasn't the manufacturers but the designers, or maybe the transport company tampering with them, or maybe the warehouse opening them up and modifying them, or maybe the store deliberately causing fault...we must ensure all bases are covered because otherwise nobody will be able to understand.

    4. Re:Mallicous? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Probably the controllers embedded in the cable will have eeprom elements that are vulnerable to cosmic rays, and also subject to the medium-term 'eprom alzheimer' issue that older eproms have.

      So your cables will die in a decade or so.

      Wonderful. Not that it matters, of course, because who would be dumb enough not to pitch out their tech gear every two or three years, right?

    5. Re:Mallicous? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Probably the controllers embedded in the cable will have eeprom elements that are vulnerable to cosmic rays, and also subject to the medium-term 'eprom alzheimer' issue that older eproms have.

      And who could be responsible for that? Better add them to the possible "malicious" parties, wouldn't want anybody getting confused now.

  14. Apple - throw us a bone please by DigiShaman · · Score: 0

    I'm rather pissed that Apple didn't just open 'Lightning' as royalty free standard. Instead, we get the shitty inferior USB-C that Apple is forced to adopt to meet the EU universal charger mandate.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Apple - throw us a bone please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you assume that Apple should give just away a standard they undoubtedly spent tons of money on for free? They license it to manufacturers, apparently at a cheap enough rate that you can get a good 3rd party cable that costs a third of what the OEM sells for. What else do you possibly want?

  15. What problem does this solve? by ZipK · · Score: 1

    What problems do non-authenticated cables cause?

    1. Re:What problem does this solve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may break anything with a USB port.

    2. Re:What problem does this solve? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Lower profits for the company that holds the licensing.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  16. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Apple. They will find a way to fuck the customer. They always find a way. They've been doing it since the Apple II. Where have you been?

  17. It's a shitty standard.... by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    when you cables need to be "authenticated"....

    Honestly, Everyone bitches about Apple, but the rest of the world is doing the same fucking thing, my cable should not have to authenticate to anything. and should just contain plastic, metal connector pins and copper wires to take it to the other end.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:It's a shitty standard.... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Maybe if it's just carrying basic signals, but usb type c is designed to do a lot more so you may not know the capabilities of the host or connection. While it's designed to carry 100w of power, you may want a cable just to connect a webcam that could be a bit thinner and cheaper. You wouldn't want to burn out your cabling by plugging that into a wall. Sure you can hook up a VGA cable, a serial cable, a couple PS2 cables, a parallel port cable, and a DC power adapter - but wouldn't you rather just have one type of cable/connector that handles all of those?

    2. Re:It's a shitty standard.... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Yes, I just want one cable type. Preferably it will be made with stranded 10 gauge copper wire, so that it can not only carry data, but also immense amounts of power. And the universal plug might be a 1 x 3 inch rectangular nightmare, but it will do anything we want.

    3. Re:It's a shitty standard.... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      That might be great for hooking your desktop PC to your VCR, but modern electronics are small and require small cabling and small connectors

  18. Proprietry Cables by bradgoodman · · Score: 1

    Proprietary, vendor-approved cables only?! Take My Money!!!

  19. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by Lumpy · · Score: 0

    Significantly more?

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb...

    Apple cable $7.50
    Amazon Basics cable $7.99

    I love it how you apple haters make up shit to try and prop up your hate.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  20. The lengths that bean counters will go to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    to save a couple cents worth of clamping diodes and fuses per USB port...

    1. Re:The lengths that bean counters will go to by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That isn't what they're saving.

      They are saving their brands, from commodification.

  21. Is it worth it? by Hentes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    USB has become succesful because it was cheap and simple to use and cheap and simple to manufacture. It seems to me that USB-C is getting further and further away from that by the day. Maybe different use cases require different solutions, maybe there is no such thing as a 'one universal cable' that can combine the advantages of all the others without the disadvantages. It seems like USB just wanted to replace lightning on Apple stuff, and does not care about PC users who don't have a fortune to waste on a piece of wire. Which is not even just wire anymore, it contains its own electronics, losing all the elegance and simplicity tha made USB great.

    1. Re:Is it worth it? by monkeyxpress · · Score: 1

      Yes, it probably is.

      I have been developing on the embedded side of USB since V1.1. The reality is that the protocol has been remarkably successful because it was designed reasonably well right at the start. This meant that each successive extension to the standard was able to do so in a way that preserved backwards compatibility with older standards. The benefit of this now is that if you don't want the new features of USB-C (super-speed, power delivery) then upgrading your device to USB-C is as easy as changing the connector - all the original firmware from 15 years ago will work fine.

      With regard to this cable situation, it is really just a problem of USB not being run by a bunch of lawyers who go about suing anyone not paying them their protection money. These cables are simple not compliant with the spec, but there is nobody to really do much about it. I think it has only become a problem for USB-C because the cables now included an optional active element. This is unlikely to be something a cable supplier has much experience with, and I think they are just doing a really rubbish job for now. However, as more USB-C silicon comes out, I think this problem will resolve itself very fast. Basically once cable manufacturers can just rip example circuits from TI and Microchip, the effort of making correct cables will begin to outweigh having to change your amazon brand every week.

  22. Software? by phorm · · Score: 1

    How useful is this? It seems like it would lock out competing low-cost cables while not dealing with the really bad ones. If a cable has a fault which will fry your computer/port, software isn't going to help much by that point.

    A hardware device might work better.

  23. Just, no. by freeze128 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No. No, no, no!

    The *LAST* thing we need is a USB cable with active components in it. It's almost bad enough that some charging cables have a small resistor in them, because now there are a million different standards of them.

    Also, if the ground and power wires are swapped at one end like the cable that killed the chromebook of that google employee, then no software is going to help at all. As soon as you plug it in, it will already have damaged your hardware.

    Here is what we *DO* need: USB cables that are transparent so you can SEE the colors of wire going to the pins of each connector. *THIS* is what will prevent damage due to bad cables. Your "software" is not needed, and wouldn't help anyway.

    1. Re:Just, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The *LAST* thing we need is a USB cable with active components in it.

      "Ye cannae change laws of physics, Jim!" The faster you want the protocol to go, the more complex the cable has to be and the tighter tolerances there have to be.

    2. Re:Just, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That won't help either. We need a cheap hardware device that tests cables.

    3. Re:Just, no. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 2

      Here is what we *DO* need: USB cables that are transparent so you can SEE the colors of wire going to the pins of each connector. *THIS* is what will prevent damage due to bad cables. Your "software" is not needed, and wouldn't help anyway.

      Or... you know... purchasers who aren't going for $.03 "USB3c 15ft MAXBESTDEALYOUBUYAWESOMESAUCE!" By and large, if you buy from reputable distributors, this is a non-issue.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    4. Re:Just, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's just false. The fastest cables are the simplest. Two fibers are pretty damn simple, but they don't have room for an evil consortium to charge the fuck out of you by injecting DRM.

      I've got cables that have no chips in them that can handle 10 THz. It won't work over BNC connectors, but there isn't jack shit about a cable that requires electronics in it.

    5. Re:Just, no. by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

      Or... you know... purchasers who aren't going for $.03 "USB3c 15ft MAXBESTDEALYOUBUYAWESOMESAUCE!" By and large, if you buy from reputable distributors, this is a non-issue.

      I agree that ridiculously cheap cables are probably no good, but that by no means guarantees that a more expensive cable will be better. Amazon, with all its various marketplaces does a good job obfuscating exactly whom I'm buying from, so it's hard for me to even tell what choice seems the most reputable. So at this point, it's still feeling like an informed gamble.

      I think this will naturally change as USB-C becomes more popular. The good cables will be well-rated, and show up more prominently in search results. But that hasn't happened yet, and probably won't for a while. Until then, like with most things, it's the early-adopters who will deal with these challenges.

    6. Re:Just, no. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The *LAST* thing we need is a USB cable with active components in it.

      We already have those. All USB-C cables have a chip in them.

      It's almost bad enough that some charging cables have a small resistor in them, because now there are a million different standards of them.

      Nope. There's precisely ONE current standard, BC1.2. The fact that some manufacturers choose to ignore that and do their own thing does not make it a standard.

      Also, if the ground and power wires are swapped at one end like the cable that killed the chromebook of that google employee, then no software is going to help at all. As soon as you plug it in, it will already have damaged your hardware.

      That's not the issue. That's just the single worst case. There are hundreds of cables on the market which don't meet the required signalling spec. That is what this software is chasing.

      Here is what we *DO* need: USB cables that are transparent so you can SEE the colors of wire going to the pins of each connector. *THIS* is what will prevent damage due to bad cables. Your "software" is not needed, and wouldn't help anyway.

      No that is NOT what we need. In fact what we need is manufacturers to be held to some testing standard. What we need is to be able to trust that when I want a cable that meets the spec that I can buy a cable that meets that spec as required without wondering if it will work. I sure as hell don't want a world where I need to independently start verifying every problem I face, especially since we're not talking about the power of the cable, double especially since the chip in the USB cable determines the wiring layout, and triple especially since there's no standard colouring that needs to be followed in a sealed cable anyway.

    7. Re:Just, no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      problem with the transparent cable is the shielding: you need metal around to shield the signal lines. Without it, you just never reach high speed transfer (low quality USB cables (A-B) already limit the transfer and bring data loss).

  24. Yes... but. by neurojab · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There have been bad cables out there that put in the wrong spec resistor or are otherwise mis-wired. However, I don't agree that "authenticating" the cables is the answer. The word "authentication" implies that there will be key exchanges involved, which puts all the pieces into place for vendor lock-in (i.e. LG devices only charge with LG certified cables, etc... ), not to mention additional cost and complexity. I for one already have a selection of USB-C compliant chargers and cables (yes, using Benson's spreadsheet). Will those be accepted by new USB-C devices supporting this specification? Will there be a supply of cheap USB-C cables that support this "authentication" AND work with every device vendor? I doubt it on both accounts. I prefer Benson's approach of shaming the vendors that don't follow the spec.

    1. Re:Yes... but. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      There have been bad cables out there that put in the wrong spec resistor or are otherwise mis-wired.

      Um no. Some of these cables are just poorly made and do not pass the USB C specification but may say that they do. Just remember Apple had to address counterfeit chargers a while back.

      The word "authentication" implies that there will be key exchanges involved, which puts all the pieces into place for vendor lock-in (i.e. LG devices only charge with LG certified cables, etc... ),,

      Why would you think that? DVD movies are authenticated and do not involve vendor lock-in or key exchanges. Remember this is USB not LG proprietary cables. Can this system be defeated? With 128 bit security, probably, however the point it to raise the bar of manufacturing so that cheap knock-offs are not likely.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  25. Stallman is going to blow a gasket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using Free Software to enforce proprietary hardware is pretty messed up.

    1. Re:Stallman is going to blow a gasket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stallman can suck it.

    2. Re:Stallman is going to blow a gasket by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Using Free Software to enforce proprietary hardware is pretty messed up.

      Is it even Free(dom) Software? I had a quick look at the article and could only see that it's Free (of charge) Software...of course the two aren't mutually exclusive.

  26. Unbelievable by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    It isn't even widely adopted yet, and it's already causing a massive clusterfuck.

    Why did they have to make the standard so stupidly complicated? What were they thinking?

  27. This cable is what you need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://amzn.com/B00HDD85UO
    It will solve everything.

    1. Re:This cable is what you need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only $50,000.00?

    2. Re: This cable is what you need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free shipping!? I'll take 3!

    3. Re:This cable is what you need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot effect? The price just dropped to $90.00. That's a helluva discount.

  28. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you missed the other comment where the guy shows Apple branded cables are cheaper on Amazon than 'Amazon Basics' brand.

  29. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're factually wrong on so many counts that it's not even funny.

    A) The cables you're comparing are different lengths. 1m for the "Apple" cable vs. 2m for the Amazon cable. No wonder it's cheaper.

    B) That "Apple" cable is being sold by a third-party via Amazon. Apple doesn't sell a single one of their products directly via Amazon. Buyer beware.

    C) To compare apples to Apples, an actual 2m Apple cables costs $29 ($19 for 1m), not the $7.50 you suggested it was.

    D) If you want to whip out your Apple e-peen to see if it's bigger than mine, I'd wager good money I have you beat. Macs have continuously been my primary computers since the late '80s. A Mac Classic, Performa 400, PowerMac G3 300, Titanium PowerBook DVI, HiRes Aluminum PowerBook, 2008 Mac mini, 2011 Mac mini. My wife uses them, my parents use them, my siblings use them, and my wife's siblings and parents do too. Likewise for phones and tablets: iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPhone 5s, iPad 2, and iPad Air 2. I could list off Time Capsules, Airport base stations, and other accessories too, if you'd like.

    I use Apple products on a daily basis and absolutely love them (we're planning to buy an iPhone SE this weekend, in fact, assuming they're in stock), but there's no (sane) way to deny that actual Apple dongles and cables are far more expensive than their generic counterparts. It's no different than the advice we'd give people about BTO RAM upgrades: do it yourself after buying from a third-party.

    So, as someone whose love for Apple likely runs far deeper than yours: stop with the lies and misinformation, since it makes us all look like we have no clue what we're talking about.

  30. Not really a "cable" any more, is it? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    If "cables" are going to have authentication chips and whatnot inside them, they're not really just cables any more, are they? They're more like a third device to put between two other devices.

    Do they really have to be so much more than just a certain number of pins in a certain pattern connected to the same at the other end by conductive material?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Not really a "cable" any more, is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just realised that a USB cable could secretly also be a keyboard that sends malicious commands to your computer, just like USB drives can be.

    2. Re:Not really a "cable" any more, is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations!

    3. Re:Not really a "cable" any more, is it? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The problem is that as charging currents and data rates have increased, it is no longer sufficient to just have a bunch of thin wires twisted together connected to some pins on a standardised plug. The data wires need to have the right capacitance between them, and the power wires need to be able to handle the current that is flowing over them as your phone is high-speed charging.

  31. Re: Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can plug them in the right way the first time!

  32. High Power Issue by foxalopex · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think a part of the problem with USB-C is that it can handle up to 100 watts of power delivery! If your cable is of questionable quality or has issues, messing up 100 watts of power can definitely break things or cause a fire. I think amazon decided to go the safer route instead of destroying equipment or causing fires.

    1. Re:High Power Issue by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

      I think a part of the problem with USB-C is that it can handle up to 100 watts of power delivery! If your cable is of questionable quality or has issues, messing up 100 watts of power can definitely break things or cause a fire. I think amazon decided to go the safer route instead of destroying equipment or causing fires.

      Exactly! For just about any other type of digital cable, if I get a dud, the worst case scenario is, it simply won't work. That means it's pretty safe for me to buy the cheapest HDMI or micro USB cable I can find, knowing that if it doesn't work, I can always return it.

    2. Re:High Power Issue by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No the problem of USB-C is tighter spec requirements. The power delivery requirements is only a small part of the failures that have been noted which include problems with the signalling, impedance, and shielding as well.

      As speeds go up and sizes go down things start getting closer and closer to not working. Take a look at a typical USB hub. Especially the ones with single sided PCBs. Take note that it's impossible to actually meet the impedance requirements of the USB 2 spec let alone USB 3 when using surface mount components on those boards due to track spacing.

      Things have been on the edge of not working for a long time, but the specs are getting less tolerant of garbage construction.

    3. Re:High Power Issue by mbrotzman.jhu · · Score: 1

      Then this is an issue for UL, not the tech companies. Just slap a sticker on the cable that tells me how many watts it is rated for. Also, all the complaints were about Type C cables "frying" electronics. How does that even happen unless there just plain wiring mixups? Cable authentication can't stop that problem cause it happens right when its plugged in!

  33. Not an authentication chip by monkeyxpress · · Score: 2

    It's not an authentication chip. It is just a chip that reports what the cable can do. If they didn't do it this way you would either have to design every cable to be able to deliver 50W of power and superspeed channel buffers, or you'd have to come up with a different scheme - such as the variable resistor values used before - to indicate what the cable can do. This also gets complicated fast, and is not easily extendable in the future. The active cable protocol is quite simple, and makes the whole system much more useful. Also, if you don't want any of the advanced features (super speed, high power delivery) then the spec supports passive USB-C cables.

  34. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    the Amazon cable is twice the length.

  35. It is DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a digital restriction on what you can do with a cable without paying off a consortium. The entire standard is malicious.

    1. Re:It is DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a digital restriction on what you can do with a cable without paying off a consortium.

      Well no, it just isnt. The cable tells the host what its capabilities are.

  36. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    And you missed the reply which showed that the Amazon cable was twice as long and pointed out that the "Apple" cable was not actually sold by Apple and, likely, counterfeit, linking to the actual Apple cable which sells for $11 more than the Amazon cable (which is still twice as long), or $21 more for the same length.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  37. I'd rather have a hardware cable tester by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If computer stores could buy a good, reliable cable tester - one that that tested the actual hardware for compliance with the actual spec - for under $100, it would make a great marketing tool.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:I'd rather have a hardware cable tester by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Part of the hardware tester could be built right into the devices the cable is used with. Line drop is fairly trivial to determine by comparing voltages at either end of a cable. So the cables that are going to start fires will have a high line drop, the devices interconnected will determine this, and refuse to use the cable.

      That's too complicated, though, and it doesn't encourage proprietary barriers. Everybody knows vendors make all their party money on cables and accessories.

  38. cable quality by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    i can't wait until best buy starts selling high quality 3' 1000$+ usb cables. google "expensive hdmi cable best buy" if you really are unaware.

    1. Re:cable quality by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Just buy them?

      Definitely not. You'll have to wait in line in front of the Apple Store like the rest of us.

  39. CABLES should be dumb and simple by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The only thing I want in a CABLE besides wires and insulation and maybe a matching transformer or other "if it's not there it won't work" things are safety systems, such as a fuse or idiot-proof/keyed endings/pinouts.

    If it's got anything else, it deserves a title more glorified than "cable." Maybe "adapter" or "connector" or "extender" (think USB-2 extension cables with button-batteries in them to boost the signal) but not a lowly term that implies simplicity like "cable."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  40. Just don't buy them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a shitty standard that is already breaking machines and threatening your security. Fuck it! Just stick with USB 3.0 until the next spec comes out, and doesn't require or allow the cables to be anything but cables.

  41. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    And you are free not to buy their overpriced USB cables. Period.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  42. Authentication as Structural Monopoly by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

    And you are free not to buy their overpriced USB cables. Period.

    Right up until the point where they use authentication to prevent it from working. Like Dell with their power adapters. (Oh, you didn't pay the dell power supply tax, so your 19.5V can't be allowed to charge the battery!)

    There are good reasons for authentication--it's very hard to find USB cables that are actually up to spec. It has cost these companies probably millions of dollars in development time to hunt down bugs related to USB cables that are below spec.

    But the solution isn't authenticated cables--it's having a robust cable testing protocol. Authenticated cables are fine and can be helpful, so long as they don't *disable* non-authenticated cables, but on their own they don't solve the underlying problem.

    1. Re:Authentication as Structural Monopoly by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Right up until the point where they use authentication to prevent it from working. Like Dell with their power adapters. (Oh, you didn't pay the dell power supply tax, so your 19.5V can't be allowed to charge the battery!)

      Again, if they use authentication, you can buy someone else's cables, not Apple's if they are following the USB standard. As for Dell, those are Dell Power supplies. They were designed and made by Dell not some standard. As is the same with Toshiba, Apple, etc and their power supplies.

      There are good reasons for authentication--it's very hard to find USB cables that are actually up to spec. It has cost these companies probably millions of dollars in development time to hunt down bugs related to USB cables that are below spec.

      Conforming to standard isn't hard or extremely expensive. It's just some companies cut corners. Monoprice has them for cheap and their cables been given good ratings by Leung.

      But the solution isn't authenticated cables--it's having a robust cable testing protocol. Authenticated cables are fine and can be helpful, so long as they don't *disable* non-authenticated cables, but on their own they don't solve the underlying problem.

      I would think that doesn't solve the problem as it goes beyond cheap cables. Remember the Apple counterfeit charger problem?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Authentication as Structural Monopoly by exomondo · · Score: 1

      But the solution isn't authenticated cables--it's having a robust cable testing protocol.

      I would much prefer my device to have software or hardware that would determine whether the cable was ok than to have to follow a "robust cable testing protocol" for every new cable I use.

  43. Uh, It's Not Necessarily A Case Of Either/Or by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    ... will offer free software to detect faulty or malicious cables.This tool will alert users if they are using a non-authenticated cable.

    A non-authenticated cable isn't necessarily faulty or malicious. I was hoping when I saw the article that the software would do actual analysis and measurement of said cables. Like run traffic or power through them and determine performance.

    It doesn't matter one bit if said cable is 'authenticated.' So this is just more DRM shit cloaked as something 'free' and helpful.

  44. "Free" as in "Free beer" by pksadiq · · Score: 1

    > Free Software Will Help Detect Faulty and Malicious USB-C Cables

    Reading the article, I see no relation with "Free Software" mentioned and "Software Freedom."

    May be deliberate as how media changed the meaning of "Hacker."

  45. The Real Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real problem here is making "cables" which are actually active devices. All the smarts should be in the devices the cables connect, then this kind of problem would not have happened. Cables should just be a way of connecting things, not the border police....

  46. Re:Apple can use this to lock in $20-$30 cables an by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    I must remember to ask the wife if she has powered up the iPad we were given last year. I certainly don't want to give them my credit card details for that, and I don't think she could handle the user interface.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"