Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by gumby | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

gumby·

There was logic to it: you could have a completely passive cable with a type c connector that would interoperate.

Agree or disagree, it wasn’t completely absurd.

View on HN

There are "charge only" micro usb cables too; I hate them.

I'd be fine with charge-only cables if there was a distinctive, mandatory, universally-honored way of indicating that.

I deliberately carry charge-only cables when I anticipate encountering untrusted chargers, and I've designated all mine with a band of red heatshrink on both ends.

These are useful for charging in no security situations. You can connect your device to an untrusted port in a wall with a charge-only cable.

If they have an A connector at the other end they are easily identified by just looking how many contacts it has.

These were made to save money but I found them handy for security reasons (no need for a USB condom).

USB condom. And now I know. Where can I buy a trustable one of these?

Pretty easy to validate— you plug your device into a trusted computer first and it doesn't recognize it.

For Type A chargers they are readily available online and can be testing using the approach mikepurvis wrote in a comment parallel to this. Or you can make yourself a clunky one as it’s just two wires.

I have seen them called “data blocker” or “secure charging cable” but what you want is one that is a female-to-male device so you can attach it to charging cables not just bricks.

Type C is harder. I have one from the early days of Type C that doesn’t do PD so in the end it’s only useful for phones. I haven’t seen one that does Power Delivery.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com