On 2/23/21 10:43 AM, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:58:47AM -0500, Michael G. Katzmann wrote: >> Is it that we are presuming that what Prolific is telling us is true >> and only Joe and I are actually measuring the data rate? (i.e. why >> does the Prolific Windows driver set the values as Joe found ???) > I'm starting to think they've added some alternate baud rate encoding in > order to make life harder for the people pushing (or unknowingly buying) > counterfeit devices. > > As you say, why else would the Windows driver support this encoding? I find that 'Halon;'s razor' is helpful in these situations... I can't think that messing with people who use old teleprinters would be useful in protecting one's products 8-) If Joe has some wireshark traces we can see if there are any vendor specific USB packets. If not I can try it (I'd be starting from scratch as I've only use wireshark on Linux). I presume you can't see any differentiators in the normal USB identifiers that we can use. If someone has a device that works under the existing driver, it would be helpful to see if the modified scheme also works on those devices?
