> I strongly disagree with this. I see no way to rationalize that a company should be responsible for ensuring that counterfeit devices work correctly by releasing drivers that are tolerant of them or do not stop them from functioning.
There's a difference between not taking steps to ensure counterfeit devices function, and purposefully causing hardware to fail on a remote system. For example, I'm pretty sure purposefully causing the problem is illegal, if the user didn't request it, as it seems the same as hacking to me.
> Imagine counterfeit processor make it into the supply chain. Should the avionics OS do its best to work with every possible fake or should it brick it on power-up before that potentially dangerous aircraft gets off the ground?
Refusing to function is acceptable. Bricking the hardware is not.
There's a difference between not taking steps to ensure counterfeit devices function, and purposefully causing hardware to fail on a remote system. For example, I'm pretty sure purposefully causing the problem is illegal, if the user didn't request it, as it seems the same as hacking to me.
> Imagine counterfeit processor make it into the supply chain. Should the avionics OS do its best to work with every possible fake or should it brick it on power-up before that potentially dangerous aircraft gets off the ground?
Refusing to function is acceptable. Bricking the hardware is not.