GALAX HOF Pro PCIe 4.0 NVMe review
How to: Firmware Update the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT
MSI Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming Z review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
USB Type-C To Get protection against malicious devices
A new USB Type-C Authentication protocol of the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) was announced on Wednesday. The USB Type-C Authentication specification defines cryptographic-based authentication for USB Type-C chargers and devices. The certificate will be issued by DigiCert.
USB Type-C Authentication empowers host systems to protect against non-compliant USB chargers and to mitigate risks from malicious firmware/hardware in USB devices attempting to exploit a USB connection. Using this protocol, host systems can confirm the authenticity of a USB device, USB cable or USB charger, including such product aspects as the capabilities and certification status. All of this happens right at the moment a connection is made - before inappropriate power or data can be transferred.
"USB-IF is excited to launch the USB Type-C Authentication Program, providing OEMs with the flexibility to implement a security framework that best fits their specific product requirements," said USB-IF President and COO Jeff Ravencraft. "As the USB Type-C ecosystem continues to grow, companies can further provide the security that consumers have come to expect from certified USB devices."
Key characteristics of the USB Type-C Authentication solution include:
- A standard protocol for authenticating certified USB Type-C chargers, devices, cables and power sources
- Support for authenticating over either USB data bus or USB Power Delivery communications channels
- Products that use the authentication protocol retain control over the security policies to be implemented and enforced
- Relies on 128-bit security for all cryptographic methods
- Specification references existing internationally-accepted cryptographic methods for certificate format, digital signing, hash and random number generation
USB-IF selected DigiCert to manage the PKI and certificate authority services for the USB Type-C Authentication Program. For further details, read the DigiCert announcement.
"DigiCert is excited to work with USB-IF and its CA Program Participants from the industry at large to provide the technical expertise and scale needed for the USB Type-C Authentication Program, and we look forward to implementation," said Geoffrey Noakes, Vice President, IoT Business Development at DigiCert.
MSI To Release GTX 1080 Ti Lightning Z & Gaming X card with USB Type C connector - 05/25/2017 05:10 PM
MSI has presented a stack of products they will be showing at Computex. Since we develop MSI AfterBurner, we already know about the Lightning. The new model will be called the Lightning Z and will s...
LG Launches 27UD88-W 27-Inch 4K LCD Monitor With USB Type-C port - 04/01/2016 08:11 AM
LG will release a new 27-inch 4K LCD monitor, the 27UD88-W. Adopting the AMD FreeSync technology to eliminate tearing, stuttering and input lag, this new 27-inch AH-IPS LED-backlight monitor (sRGB cov...
SanDisk Ultra USB Type-C Flash Drives - 02/24/2016 09:07 AM
SanDisk has released a new line of USB Type-C flash drives, the SanDisk Ultra. Performance-wise, the SanDisk Ultra can deliver USB 3.1 performance of up to 150MB/s, making it SanDisk’s fast...
First mice based on USB Type-C Receiver Spotted - 11/12/2015 09:36 AM
Elecom released wireless mouse, the M-BL26DBC. Coming in a 5-button design, this compact mouse makes use of 2.4GHz radio frequency (works up to 10 meters) and features a BlueLED sensor, a 1200/2400d...
Lexar JumpDrive M20c USB Type-C Flash Drive - 10/13/2015 05:38 PM
Lexarannounced two additions to its mobile USB 3.0 flash drive line: the Lexar JumpDrive M20c and the Lexar JumpDrive M20i. The Lexar JumpDrive M20c is designed for use with next-generation USB Type-C...
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9864
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9864
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5623619 Posted on: 01/04/2019 06:00 PM
Oh yeah. Your charger suddenly stops working. Why? Manufacturer issued and update which broke it. Or someone hacked it because it had actual components with data which could be altered.
Oh yeah. Your charger suddenly stops working. Why? Manufacturer issued and update which broke it. Or someone hacked it because it had actual components with data which could be altered.
TieSKey
Senior Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 2015-09-26
Senior Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 2015-09-26
#5623681 Posted on: 01/04/2019 09:24 PM
Don't forget your iCharger in the car because no other usb charger will work on an iCrap device. And ofc, iCharger will not work on any other device.
Don't forget your iCharger in the car because no other usb charger will work on an iCrap device. And ofc, iCharger will not work on any other device.
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 21168
Joined: 2008-07-14
Senior Member
Posts: 21168
Joined: 2008-07-14
#5623743 Posted on: 01/05/2019 02:52 AM
So, now phone manufacturers will be able to require you to use only "authentic" chargers with your phone.....
So, now phone manufacturers will be able to require you to use only "authentic" chargers with your phone.....
K.S.
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: 2009-06-07
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: 2009-06-07
#5623746 Posted on: 01/05/2019 03:11 AM
Anyone smell Apple's "endorsing" of this?
Anyone smell Apple's "endorsing" of this?
lucidus
Senior Member
Posts: 11856
Joined: 2011-12-31
Senior Member
Posts: 11856
Joined: 2011-12-31
#5623747 Posted on: 01/05/2019 03:14 AM
Who else? Over priced authorized headphones, chargers, dongles for dongles ... you name it. Just like that iOS update that blocked certain repaired phones from functioning, we may see an iOS update that won't let you charge your phone lol.
Anyone smell Apple's "endorsing" of this?
Who else? Over priced authorized headphones, chargers, dongles for dongles ... you name it. Just like that iOS update that blocked certain repaired phones from functioning, we may see an iOS update that won't let you charge your phone lol.
K.S.
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: 2009-06-07
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: 2009-06-07
#5623749 Posted on: 01/05/2019 03:33 AM
How this doesn't go against anti-competitive laws since there are essentially markets already built on peripherals & Apple and other OEMs have long held licensing contracts with Belkin etc said vendors to manufacturer said products in the past, ie lightning cables etc.. so... ??
Ya know what "what else is new"
Who else? Over priced authorized headphones, chargers, dongles for dongles ... you name it. Just like that iOS update that blocked certain repaired phones from functioning, we may see an iOS update that won't let you charge your phone lol.
How this doesn't go against anti-competitive laws since there are essentially markets already built on peripherals & Apple and other OEMs have long held licensing contracts with Belkin etc said vendors to manufacturer said products in the past, ie lightning cables etc.. so... ??
Ya know what "what else is new"
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9864
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9864
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5623797 Posted on: 01/05/2019 12:30 PM
How this doesn't go against anti-competitive laws since there are essentially markets already built on peripherals & Apple and other OEMs have long held licensing contracts with Belkin etc said vendors to manufacturer said products in the past, ie lightning cables etc.. so... ??
Ya know what "what else is new"
Well, going into that direction. I expect that instead of blocking everyone else from making otherwise perfectly compatible devices, it will be used to ensure that "license fees" are paid.
"Do you want to make charger for our phones? Pay!" Looks bad, but it is not like we do not have it already around. And a lot of people endorsed it too.
- - -==> G-Sync Module (tm)
But in case of USB charger, payment will not be for overpriced module. It will be for Phone manufacturer to add communication ID of charger into list of approved devices.
How this doesn't go against anti-competitive laws since there are essentially markets already built on peripherals & Apple and other OEMs have long held licensing contracts with Belkin etc said vendors to manufacturer said products in the past, ie lightning cables etc.. so... ??
Ya know what "what else is new"
Well, going into that direction. I expect that instead of blocking everyone else from making otherwise perfectly compatible devices, it will be used to ensure that "license fees" are paid.
"Do you want to make charger for our phones? Pay!" Looks bad, but it is not like we do not have it already around. And a lot of people endorsed it too.
- - -==> G-Sync Module (tm)
But in case of USB charger, payment will not be for overpriced module. It will be for Phone manufacturer to add communication ID of charger into list of approved devices.
K.S.
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: 2009-06-07
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: 2009-06-07
#5623875 Posted on: 01/05/2019 09:16 PM
I see what you're saying - yeah...
I think where this varies from the old model was a wholesaler could have held a license and still have sold their variant of the OEMs product without another company's authentication spec/ident in their product. Apple's, Motorola's etc etc when it came to something as "dumb" as a cable.
Anti-competitive practices don't stipulate by nature seeking out things that break compatibility always but also that unusual increase in costs iirc. Perhaps any whole-seller that manufactures for OEMs will be given some form of access to their Authentication layer to smoothen things out. I'd be surprised if they sell at low cost. A 13 ft. charging cable instead of the OEM 6 ft. & for a good deal.
I see what you're saying - yeah...
I think where this varies from the old model was a wholesaler could have held a license and still have sold their variant of the OEMs product without another company's authentication spec/ident in their product. Apple's, Motorola's etc etc when it came to something as "dumb" as a cable.
Anti-competitive practices don't stipulate by nature seeking out things that break compatibility always but also that unusual increase in costs iirc. Perhaps any whole-seller that manufactures for OEMs will be given some form of access to their Authentication layer to smoothen things out. I'd be surprised if they sell at low cost. A 13 ft. charging cable instead of the OEM 6 ft. & for a good deal.
scatman839
Senior Member
Posts: 13995
Joined: 2004-11-19
Senior Member
Posts: 13995
Joined: 2004-11-19
#5623877 Posted on: 01/05/2019 09:34 PM
You're all raising some pretty valid points but on the flip side, usb 3.1 can deliver some pretty hefty power output, and badly made cheap chargers can catch on fire or brick devices. Example from top of my head is that the switch uses specs outside compliance so using a 3.1 charger block while it's docked can brick it.
But I do see it more likely as you're all getting at we'll official branded chargers.
But still then, wouldn't you just be able to use a 2a USB 2 charger block?
You're all raising some pretty valid points but on the flip side, usb 3.1 can deliver some pretty hefty power output, and badly made cheap chargers can catch on fire or brick devices. Example from top of my head is that the switch uses specs outside compliance so using a 3.1 charger block while it's docked can brick it.
But I do see it more likely as you're all getting at we'll official branded chargers.
But still then, wouldn't you just be able to use a 2a USB 2 charger block?
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 9864
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 9864
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5623947 Posted on: 01/06/2019 09:27 AM
You're all raising some pretty valid points but on the flip side, usb 3.1 can deliver some pretty hefty power output, and badly made cheap chargers can catch on fire or brick devices. Example from top of my head is that the switch uses specs outside compliance so using a 3.1 charger block while it's docked can brick it.
But I do see it more likely as you're all getting at we'll official branded chargers.
But still then, wouldn't you just be able to use a 2a USB 2 charger block?
It depends in their intentions.
On old USB 2.0 power supply signals to device its capability to deliver current by having specific resistivity between data+ and data-. IIRC shorting data+ and data- => 2A. Then it was up to devices to have circuitry design which would change its electrical properties to allow for certain power draw. That standard did support only 5V in all cases.
Currently we have USB 2.0 with quick charge feature 2 and 3. That works by bi-directional signaling through changes of resistivity on both ends and basically results in negotiation of highest possible voltage and current. In worst case scenario power supply incorrectly reads signaling from device and uses higher than desirable voltage. Here 2nd standard went to up-to 12V in 3 stages (5/9/12V).
3rd standard goes up to 20V in 200mV steps. Which is a lot of stages and likely not needed.
And currently 4th standard which includes USB 3.0 is rather unknown to me. Wiki states 20V maximum, chargers themselves too. Again increments in 200mV depending on negotiation. Then currents listed are just all over place. There are chargers doing 20V/5A too. But it is not like device supporting same version of quick charge (able to be supplied by certain voltage) will burn due to over-current as device has to have its circuits designed in way that it is able to limit current.
(That's at least for USB 2.0 devices as they need to have backward compatibility even with that old 5V/2A standard. As there it is up to device circuitry to change its electrical to enable higher currents as power supply just announce "I can do max 2A".)
You're all raising some pretty valid points but on the flip side, usb 3.1 can deliver some pretty hefty power output, and badly made cheap chargers can catch on fire or brick devices. Example from top of my head is that the switch uses specs outside compliance so using a 3.1 charger block while it's docked can brick it.
But I do see it more likely as you're all getting at we'll official branded chargers.
But still then, wouldn't you just be able to use a 2a USB 2 charger block?
It depends in their intentions.
On old USB 2.0 power supply signals to device its capability to deliver current by having specific resistivity between data+ and data-. IIRC shorting data+ and data- => 2A. Then it was up to devices to have circuitry design which would change its electrical properties to allow for certain power draw. That standard did support only 5V in all cases.
Currently we have USB 2.0 with quick charge feature 2 and 3. That works by bi-directional signaling through changes of resistivity on both ends and basically results in negotiation of highest possible voltage and current. In worst case scenario power supply incorrectly reads signaling from device and uses higher than desirable voltage. Here 2nd standard went to up-to 12V in 3 stages (5/9/12V).
3rd standard goes up to 20V in 200mV steps. Which is a lot of stages and likely not needed.
And currently 4th standard which includes USB 3.0 is rather unknown to me. Wiki states 20V maximum, chargers themselves too. Again increments in 200mV depending on negotiation. Then currents listed are just all over place. There are chargers doing 20V/5A too. But it is not like device supporting same version of quick charge (able to be supplied by certain voltage) will burn due to over-current as device has to have its circuits designed in way that it is able to limit current.
(That's at least for USB 2.0 devices as they need to have backward compatibility even with that old 5V/2A standard. As there it is up to device circuitry to change its electrical to enable higher currents as power supply just announce "I can do max 2A".)
Andrew LB
Senior Member
Posts: 1066
Joined: 2012-05-22
Senior Member
Posts: 1066
Joined: 2012-05-22
#5624037 Posted on: 01/06/2019 10:49 PM
How this doesn't go against anti-competitive laws since there are essentially markets already built on peripherals & Apple and other OEMs have long held licensing contracts with Belkin etc said vendors to manufacturer said products in the past, ie lightning cables etc.. so... ??
Ya know what "what else is new"
https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/antitrust-guidelines.pdf
I'm sure there will be no shortage of lawsuits by third party manufacturers if what you claim is true.
How this doesn't go against anti-competitive laws since there are essentially markets already built on peripherals & Apple and other OEMs have long held licensing contracts with Belkin etc said vendors to manufacturer said products in the past, ie lightning cables etc.. so... ??
Ya know what "what else is new"
https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/antitrust-guidelines.pdf
I'm sure there will be no shortage of lawsuits by third party manufacturers if what you claim is true.
K.S.
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: 2009-06-07
Senior Member
Posts: 2054
Joined: 2009-06-07
#5624040 Posted on: 01/06/2019 11:05 PM
https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/antitrust-guidelines.pdf
I'm sure there will be no shortage of lawsuits by third party manufacturers if what you claim is true.
Oh that's nice, thanks for finding that Andrew! I remain a skeptic by nature but at least they have guidelines. Hopefully no price hiking from the current options available.
If they can't make it scalable yet cost-efficient for the OEMs then send it back to the drawing board. No sense in calling it a revision otherwise, imo.
https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/antitrust-guidelines.pdf
I'm sure there will be no shortage of lawsuits by third party manufacturers if what you claim is true.
Oh that's nice, thanks for finding that Andrew! I remain a skeptic by nature but at least they have guidelines. Hopefully no price hiking from the current options available.
If they can't make it scalable yet cost-efficient for the OEMs then send it back to the drawing board. No sense in calling it a revision otherwise, imo.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 2007-01-19
This charger has an expiration date of 2021-11-22. No charging will be possible past this day!