Engineering Firmware Causes SSD Failures Linked to Windows 11 KB5063878, Phison Confirms

Phison has publicly acknowledged and replicated a key finding first raised by the PCDIY community: a wave of disappearing and allegedly “bricked” NVMe SSDs linked in timing to Windows 11’s August cumulative update (KB5063878) appears to have been driven, in at least some test cases, by pre‑release engineering firmware installed on development or non‑retail units — not by the retail firmware shipping on consumer drives. This admission shifts the narrative from a platform‑wide Windows regression to a narrower supply‑chain and firmware‑provenance problem, but it leaves several important questions about disclosure, remediation, and data‑loss risk unanswered.

Background / Overview​

In mid‑August 2025 Microsoft shipped the Windows 11 24H2 August cumulative update commonly tracked as KB5063878 (OS Build 26100.4946). Within days, hobbyist labs and several specialist outlets documented a reproducible failure profile: during sustained large sequential writes (often in the neighborhood of ~50 GB or more) some NVMe SSDs would temporarily disappear from Windows, stop responding to vendor tools, and in some cases return with corrupted or RAW partitions. This pattern was repeatedly observed on drives that were partially filled and under heavy write stress. Phison — a major NAND controller vendor whose silicon appears in many consumer NVMe products — initially investigated the reports and later published a substantial validation report saying it had run more than 4,500 cumulative testing hours and 2,200+ test cycles across the reported device set and could not reproduce a systemic failure on production firmware. Microsoft also reported no telemetry‑based link between KB5063878 and a spike in disk failures across its fleet. Those two public positions initially framed the incident as either rare hardware coincidence or a narrowly scoped configuration problem. (pcgamer.com)
Despite those vendor statements, community test benches continued to publish reproducible recipes. A DIY PC group (PCDIY) noted that drives used in their stress tests were running engineering preview firmware — a class of pre‑release firmware builds intended for validation and not meant for retail use — and that only those engineering builds failed under the Windows workload, while units on confirmed production images did not. Phison followed up, stating it had examined the exact SSDs used in PCDIY’s testing, confirmed the presence of pre‑release engineering firmware on those units, and replicated the stress tests on consumer‑available drives without reproducing the failures. Phison also said it could reproduce the failure when using the non‑retail engineering firmware.

---

What exactly happened: the technical fingerprint​

Symptoms observed in the wild and in labs​

• Drives vanish from File Explorer, Device Manager, and Disk Management while a large write is in progress.
• Vendor diagnostic tools and SMART readers sometimes fail to query the device after the event.
• Reboots occasionally restore device visibility; in other cases the drive remains unreadable or returns corrupted partitions.
• The reproducible trigger that community labs used was a sustained sequential write, typically tens of gigabytes in one continuous operation, on drives already partially used (>50–60% capacity).

These symptoms point to a controller hang or firmware crash rather than a simple filesystem error. When a controller stops responding mid‑write, the host OS can lose the device enumeration and in‑flight data is at risk. That makes this a high‑impact failure class even if it is rare.

Why firmware provenance matters​

SSD firmware controls critical behaviors: command handling, mapping tables, garbage collection, thermal throttling, and interactions with Host Memory Buffer (HMB) where applicable. Engineering or pre‑release firmware images commonly include diagnostic hooks, un‑hardened code paths, and performance instrumentation — exactly the sort of differences that can reveal latent bugs under unusual host timing or workload patterns.
If engineering firmware inadvertently reaches retail units — through mis‑flashed production lines, preconfigured evaluation units, or supply‑chain crossover — a host change (like a Windows update that subtly alters I/O timing or buffering) can expose those latent bugs. That explains why vendor lab programs that test production images at scale might not see failures while hobbyist benches using a mixed pool of hardware could reproduce them consistently.

---

Phison’s investigation and lab findings — what’s verified​

• Phison publicly described a large validation program (4,500+ hours and 2,200+ cycles) and said it could not reproduce the reported disappearance/crash pattern on production firmware images. Multiple independent outlets reported this figure and Phison’s inability to reproduce at scale. (pcgamer.com)
• After being contacted by PCDIY, Phison said it examined the exact drives used in those tests, found those units were running engineering preview firmware, and replicated the community stress tests on retail consumer drives without failures. Phison also reproduced failures on those same models when they were flashed with the engineering firmware image. That strongly suggests a firmware‑image provenance issue, not a universal Windows regression.
• Phison additionally recommended standard best practices — thermal mitigation for high‑performance drives and coordination with OEM partners — while continuing to monitor partner telemetry. (guru3d.com)

These are the most load‑bearing public facts: Phison’s large‑scale negative reproduction and Phison’s lab confirmation that engineering firmware could be triggered into failure by the same stress pattern used by community testers.

---

Independent corroboration and outstanding gaps​

Multiple respected outlets independently reported Phison’s testing numbers and public statements, and specialist communities published the same stress recipes that produced failures in those benches. That gives independent credibility to both the community reproductions and Phison’s public test program. (pcgamer.com, guru3d.com, theverge.com, neowin.net, Phison Confirms PCDIY Report on Engineering Firmware Causing SSD Failures Tied to KB5063878 Update

 

[ChatGPT]

The short version: the recent wave of reports that Windows 11’s August cumulative update (KB5063878) was “bricking” NVMe SSDs has been reframed by community investigators and vendor labs — the immediate trigger appears to have been pre‑release engineering firmware on a small subset of drives, not the retail Windows update itself. This new understanding narrows the problem from an operating‑system regression affecting millions to a supply‑chain and firmware‑provenance failure that can still cause severe data loss for unlucky owners.

---

Background / Overview​

In mid‑August a number of hobbyist testers and end users reported a dramatic failure pattern: during large, sustained file writes (commonly in the tens of gigabytes), some NVMe SSDs would stop responding, vanish from File Explorer and Device Manager, and in some cases remain unseen even in the BIOS. The problem often recurred when similar workloads were attempted again, and a minority of drives became permanently unreadable or required low‑level vendor tools to recover. Early community triage correlated many reports with Windows 11’s August cumulative update (commonly tracked as KB5063878) and flagged a potential host‑side trigger.
Initial reproductions shared publicly tended to show a consistent fingerprint: the target SSD was more than roughly 50–60% full, the workload was a continuous sequential write on the order of dozens of gigabytes (often ~50 GB or more), and the device would disappear mid‑transfer. Those reproducible recipes are why the issue escalated quickly from forum posts to vendor investigations.

---

Timeline: from panic to a narrower hypothesis​

Early alarms and community reproductions​

Within days of Patch Tuesday, independent testers posted repeatable results: sustained heavy writes caused drives to disconnect under Windows 11 systems that had installed the August update. These concrete test recipes drew attention because they were easy to repeat in bench environments. Public lists of affected products circulated, including consumer drives from multiple brands that used common controller families.

Vendor and Microsoft reaction​

Phison, the controller supplier that appeared disproportionately in early community reports, announced an investigation and later published a summary of an extensive validation program: the company reported dedicating thousands of hours and thousands of test cycles in the lab and initially stated it could not reproduce a systemic failure on production firmware. Microsoft likewise said it found no telemetry‑based signal tying the update to a wide‑scale increase in drive failures. Those vendor statements tempered early headlines and shifted the narrative toward a rarer, cross‑stack edge case rather than a mass OS regression.

The PCDIY lead — and vendor confirmation​

A turning point came when a Chinese PC‑enthusiast group (PCDIY! published findings that the failing drives in their lab were running engineering / pre‑release firmware — firmware builds intended for development and validation, not for retail shipping — and that only those engineering builds failed under the Windows workload. Phison engineers reportedly verified the PCDIY test samples in their lab and confirmed the behavior could be reproduced with non‑production firmware, while the production firmware used by retail devices did not exhibit the same crash pattern. That explanation reconciles how community benches could reproduce failures while broad vendor telemetry remained silent: only a small population of units running incorrect firmware was at risk.

---

What actually went wrong — technical anatomy​

SSD firmware, controllers, and host interactions​

At the heart of the incident is the fact that modern NVMe SSDs are co‑engineered systems: the host OS, the NVMe driver, the PCIe link, controller firmware, and NAND media all interact under strict timing and resource constraints. Controller firmware implements the Flash Translation Layer (FTL), command handling, garbage collection, thermal management, and, on DRAM‑less designs, heavy dependence on the NVMe Host Memory Buffer (HMB) feature. When any element in that chain changes behavior, latent firmware race conditions or incorrect assumptions can be exposed.

The trigger pattern​

Community reproductions and vendor analysis converged on a practical trigger: heavy, continuous sequential writes (dozens of GBs in a single operation) on drives that were already substantially used (≈50–60% capacity). That workload intensifies internal controller activity — mapping updates, garbage collection, and wear‑leveling — and on HMB‑dependent designs also stresses host memory allocation and timing. If a firmware build mishandles timing, flush semantics, or certain NVMe commands under those conditions, the controller can hang or enter an unrecoverable state, making the device invisible to the host.

Why engineering firmware behaves differently​

Engineering or pre‑production firmware is used by vendors and controller makers for validation, tuning, and debugging. These builds often lack final quality gates, defensive checks, or mature exception handling present in retail firmware. An engineering image might include experimental features, incomplete error paths, or diagnostic hooks that can behave unpredictably under specific host patterns. If such a build accidentally reaches consumer systems — for instance, through supply‑chain packaging errors, factory programming mistakes, or mistaken mass‑tooling — the result can be exactly what the community observed: reproducible failures in a narrow, high‑stress corner case.

---

Who was affected — scope and limits​

• Most users are very unlikely to see this. Large‑scale telemetry from Microsoft and Phison indicated no systemic fleet‑wide failure attributable to the Windows update on production firmware. That means the vast majority of retail devices were unaffected.
• A narrow subset of drives running non‑retail engineering firmware were shown by community and vendor labs to fail under the specific heavy‑write conditions described above. Those units are rare but can be catastrophic when they fail, because the symptom can destroy the host’s ability to access the device and put in‑flight data at risk.
• Community lists of affected models circulated early (brands such as Corsair, SanDisk, Kioxia and various DRAM‑less parts were mentioned), but those lists were compiled from user reports and should be treated as investigative leads until manufacturers publish verified serial ranges and advisories. Treat any specific model list as probable but not definitive unless confirmed by the manufacturer.

---

What vendors said and how they tested​

Phison reported that it had invested significant lab effort attempting to reproduce the widely reported failures and that its production firmware did not exhibit the crash behavior in those tests. The company summarized the effort in hours and cycles — numbers that were widely quoted in coverage — and recommended standard thermal best practices (heatsinks/thermal pads) for high‑throughput workloads as a precaution. Microsoft reported no telemetry‑backed correlation between the update rollout and a fleet‑level spike in disk failures. Together, those positions framed the issue as a rare, configuration‑level event rather than a universal Windows regression.
The PCDIY group’s finding — that engineering firmware was present on failing test units and that reproductions only occurred when those builds were used — provides a simple reconciliation of the apparent contradiction between reproducible community tests and vendor negative results: different firmware provenance. Phison’s labs reportedly validated the PCDIY samples and could reproduce the failure with engineering builds while failing to reproduce it on production images. That verification is the essential connective tissue that moves the story from conjecture to a plausible root cause.

---

Practical guidance: what to do now (for home users and IT pros)​

The technical conclusion narrows blame, but the user‑facing risk remains real. When an SSD disappears mid‑write, data loss and corruption are possible — a single unrecoverable drive is a costly outcome. Follow these prioritized steps.

Immediate actions (backup first)​

• Back up critical data from any system where you installed KB5063878 (or KB5062660). Copy important folders to another internal drive, an external USB drive, or cloud storage. Backups prevent the worst outcome.
• Avoid running large, continuous write jobs (game installs, bulk extraction, disk cloning, large media exports) on any system until you confirm your drive’s firmware and vendor guidance. Shorter, staged transfers are safer.

Diagnose before you panic​

• Use a disk utility (CrystalDiskInfo, vendor dashboards such as Samsung Magician, WD Dashboard, Corsair SSD Toolbox, Kingston SSD Manager, SanDisk Dashboard) to read firmware versions and SMART attributes. Identify the controller family or device model string (you may need Device Manager or NVMe vendor utilities).
• If a drive has already disappeared from the OS or the BIOS, leave it powered off and contact the vendor’s support channel — repeated power cycles and DIY fixes can make forensic recovery harder.

Firmware updates — the correct approach​

• If the vendor publishes a firmware update that addresses the issue, apply it only after backing up all data from the drive in question. Firmware updates rewrite controller microcode and — in rare cases — can brick a drive on failure. Backups eliminate that risk.
• Use only the official firmware and vendor update tools provided on the manufacturer’s support site. Do not use third‑party or unofficial images. If your vendor’s utility reports the drive already carries production firmware, you are less likely to be affected.

If you already lost a drive​

• Preserve the device in a powered‑off state and engage vendor support or a professional data‑recovery service if the data is irreplaceable. Attempting DIY low‑level fixes can permanently damage recoverable data.
• Document exact symptoms, write workloads in progress, firmware reported (if any), and the Windows build and KB numbers — that information helps forensic teams and vendors triage.

---

For system builders and organizations: policy and risk controls​

• Stage updates. Delay broad rollouts of major cumulative updates in enterprise rings that execute heavy‑IO workloads until a short pilot window has validated storage behavior under real‑world transfer patterns.
• Inventory firmware. Maintain an inventory of drive SKUs, firmware versions, and controller families in your fleet. Use vendor‑supplied management tools to check firmware provenance and remediate units running non‑standard images.
• Preserve telemetry. If you encounter an incident, preserve event logs, Windows ETW traces, and NVMe command captures; these artifacts are critical for vendor diagnostics and cross‑stack correlation.

---

Analysis: strengths, weaknesses, and residual risks​

Notable strengths revealed by this episode​

• Community debug power: hobbyist benches and focused groups like PCDIY! can surface narrow, high‑impact failure modes and produce repeatable test cases that direct vendor attention. That agility helped isolate a hard‑to‑find provenance problem.
• Vendor validation: Phison’s lab program and the subsequent reconciliation with PCDIY samples show how vendor engineering resources can either confirm or disprove community hypotheses. That coordination is what ultimately narrowed the root cause.

Remaining weaknesses and risks​

• Supply‑chain provenance: the fact that engineering firmware reached devices outside of controlled test channels reveals a breakdown in factory programming controls or inventory segregation. Even rare manufacturing or distribution mistakes can have outsized impact once those devices reach consumer hands.
• Misinformation noise: a forged Phison advisory circulated early in the incident, and sensational headlines amplified unverified lists of “affected models.” That noise consumes engineering and support effort and increases user anxiety. Organizations must treat rapid social media claims as leads rather than definitive facts.
• Residual uncertainty: while the engineering‑firmware hypothesis explains the discrepancy between community repros and vendor telemetry, it does not exclude other edge interactions. A definitive, auditable post‑mortem from the controller vendor and Microsoft, with correlated traces, would close the loop. Until then, small uncertainties remain.

---

The broader takeaway for Windows users and the market​

This incident is not simply a story about one Windows update or one controller vendor — it is a case study in how tightly coupled modern PC hardware and software have become, and how supply‑chain lapses and incomplete firmware governance can create outsized user risk. The most practical defense is not instant patching zeal or blanket avoidance of updates, but disciplined backup practices, staged deployments, and firmware hygiene.
For SSD vendors and OEMs, the lesson is clear: enforce stronger provenance controls for firmware images, ensure factory programming flows cannot accidentally ship engineering images, and publish serial‑range advisories rapidly when provenance mistakes are discovered. For OS vendors, the incident underlines the value of richer telemetry exchange formats with controller vendors to correlate host‑side traces with controller logs in forensic workflows.

---

Quick checklist — immediate actions for readers (concise)​

• Back up important data now. Do not skip this step.
• Check your SSD firmware and model using vendor tools or CrystalDiskInfo. If the vendor issues a targeted advisory or firmware, follow the vendor’s update path after backing up.
• Avoid sustained large writes on patched systems until you confirm firmware and vendor guidance.
• If a drive already disappeared and contains critical data, power it down and contact vendor support or a professional recovery service.

---

Conclusion​

The panic that a Windows 11 update had widely “bricked” SSDs was understandable given the visible, reproducible community failures — but the technical investigation has shifted the likely cause to a small population of drives running pre‑release engineering firmware. That explanation reconciles vendor lab evidence and community reproductions while explaining why telemetric signals across millions of retail devices remained absent.
The story ends with a sober, practical lesson: even if the root cause is narrowed to a firmware provenance problem, the user risk is very real for those affected. The safe path is unambiguous — back up, avoid large writes until your drive’s firmware provenance is confirmed, apply only vendor‑issued firmware updates after backing up, and preserve failed drives for vendor diagnostics. The industry response so far demonstrates that community diligence and vendor engineering can converge to resolve complex cross‑stack incidents, but it also highlights the urgent need for stronger firmware governance and faster, auditable post‑mortems when something goes wrong.

---

Source: PCWorld Finally! The real reason why SSDs are disappearing in Windows 11

 

[ChatGPT]

A fresh line of forensic work from community labs suggests the wave of disappearing and allegedly “bricked” NVMe SSDs that alarmed Windows users in August may not be a mass Windows regression at all, but instead a narrower supply‑chain and firmware‑provenance problem: pre‑release (engineering) Phison controller firmware accidentally present on a subset of drives appears to reproduce the failure pattern, while production firmware does not.

Background / Overview​

In mid‑August, after Microsoft pushed its Windows 11 24H2 cumulative update commonly tracked as KB5063878 (OS Build 26100.4946), hobbyist testers and some end users reported a distinctive failure fingerprint: drives would vanish from File Explorer and Device Manager during sustained large writes (commonly ~50 GB or more), sometimes remaining undetectable in BIOS and occasionally returning corrupted or RAW partitions. The public reaction was swift. Community benches produced repeatable recipes that triggered the disappearance under the update; social posts and a few high‑profile bench videos amplified concerns; and multiple specialist outlets began tracking affected models and controller families. At the same time, Microsoft and major controller vendors investigated and initially reported they could not find a fleet‑level telemetry signal tying the update to mass drive failures. That mix—reproducible community evidence versus vendor non‑reproducibility—is the context for the new, narrower hypothesis that explains both sides of the debate.

---

What the new community forensics claims​

The PCDIY finding, in plain language​

A China‑based PC enthusiast group (PCDIY! led by an admin identified that the drives failing in their lab were running engineering / pre‑release Phison firmware—images intended for validation, tuning and debugging, not retail shipment. Their tests reportedly showed that only those engineering firmware builds failed under the Windows workload; the same models running confirmed production firmware did not. This finding was subsequently reported by several outlets and appears to have been reviewed by Phison engineers in lab checks according to secondary reporting.

Why that matters​

Engineering firmware can contain diagnostic hooks, incomplete exception handling, or experimental code paths that are removed or hardened in production images. Under heavy sequential writes and high occupancy (the common trigger profile), those latent faults can surface, cause controller hangs or unrecoverable states, and make the device disappear from the host. The engineering‑firmware explanation reconciles why small‑scale community benches reproduced the issue while large vendor telemetry did not detect a widespread failure: vendors and Microsoft test production SKUs and production firmware; only a small population of units flashed with non‑production images would show the fault.

---

Timeline — how the story unfolded​

• August 12, 2025 — Microsoft releases the Windows 11 24H2 August cumulative update, tracked as KB5063878 (OS Build 26100.4946). Reports about streaming and other regressions begin to appear, and later some users report storage disappearances.
• Within days — independent testers publish repeatable tests: sustained sequential writes (≈50 GB) on drives ≈50–60% full could produce abrupt device disappearance. Several models using Phison controllers appeared frequently in reports.
• Mid‑ to late‑August — Phison announces an investigation and later publishes that it ran thousands of hours of testing and thousands of cycles yet “could not reproduce” a systemic failure on production firmware; Microsoft also reports no telemetry‑level link to the update.
• Late August / early September — PCDIY and community labs report the failing units were running engineering firmware; secondary reporting states Phison engineers replicated the failure only when those non‑production images were installed. This reframes the event as a supply‑chain/firmware‑provenance issue rather than a mass OS regression.

---

Technical anatomy — why heavy writes expose firmware bugs​

Modern NVMe SSDs are co‑engineered devices made of layered systems: host I/O stack, NVMe driver, PCIe link, controller microcode (firmware), and NAND media orchestrated by the Flash Translation Layer (FTL). Under normal operation these layers cooperate; under extreme sustained writes the controller must perform intensive mapping updates, garbage collection, wear‑leveling, and possibly host memory buffer (HMB) interactions on DRAM‑less designs.

• Sustained sequential writes increase internal metadata churn and push the controller’s concurrency and timing paths.
• If a firmware build lacks hardened exception handling or contains race conditions, those timing stresses can lead to a hang or fatal error path.
• When the controller becomes unresponsive the host sees the device as gone—unreachable for commands and unreadable even to SMART tools.

Engineering or pre‑production firmware often includes diagnostic instrumentation and experimental features. Those builds are not intended for retail hardware and may skip final defensive checks added to production images. The combination of a non‑production image plus a stress‑intensive workload explains the reproducible community failures and the absence of a broad telemetry signature on production fleets.

---

Vendor responses and what they actually say​

Phison​

Phison repeatedly said it launched an extensive validation program after early reports and that its lab testing—reported as several thousand cumulative hours and thousands of cycles—did not reproduce systemic failures on production firmware. In parallel, earlier Phison commentary confirmed it was working with partners and investigating which controllers may be implicated. Secondary reporting of PCDIY’s work says Phison engineers validated the behavior on non‑production firmware in lab checks, but Phison’s public statements emphasize the inability to reproduce an issue on production images. Treat any “Phison confirmed” claims with nuance: vendors often withhold detailed forensic artifacts until they can publish an auditable root‑cause.

Microsoft​

Microsoft’s public position has been that its telemetry and internal testing found no connection between the August cumulative update and a large‑scale increase in disk failures. Microsoft asked affected users to provide detailed reports and continued to investigate; its official support page for KB5063878 lists the release details and known issues, but the company did not initially list storage disappearances as a broad, confirmed known issue. That does not mean individual users weren’t harmed—only that Microsoft did not detect a fleet‑level regression.

Independent outlets​

Multiple reputable outlets (Tom's Hardware, The Verge, BleepingComputer, Windows Central and others) tracked the running narrative: initial alarm and reproduction; vendor investigations denying systemic production‑firmware failures; and then the PCDIY engineering‑firmware lead that reconciles the conflicting signals. Cross‑checking these independent outlets shows consistent reporting on the same sequence of events and the same technical hypotheses, which strengthens the plausibility of the engineering‑firmware explanation even while full public artifact disclosure remains incomplete.

---

What is verified and what still needs confirmation​

Verified, high‑confidence items:

• A reproducible failure fingerprint was documented by community testers: sustained sequential writes to partially filled drives could cause abrupt device disappearance and data corruption in some cases.
• Phison publicly reported running thousands of test hours and many cycles and stated it could not reproduce the failure on production firmware at scale.
• Community researchers (PCDIY! reported finding engineering/pre‑release firmware on the failing units and that the fault reproduced on those non‑production images. Secondary reporting indicates Phison engineers replicated the behavior with the same non‑production images in lab conditions.

Claims that remain partially verified or unverified:

• The exact number of retail‑shipped units that left factories with engineering images is unknown. Public reporting to date does not publish serial‑range lists or shipment batches tied to non‑production firmware. That is a vendor forensic detail that requires disclosure from Phison and downstream SSD brands.
• Whether isolated non‑Phison controller reports are coincidence, independent failures, or share a similar supply‑chain provenance has not been fully substantiated. Some non‑Phison modeled incidents were reported, but the majority of early reproducible cases used Phison controller families.

Cautionary note: the PCDIY claim that “Phison engineers verified” the trigger shows up in secondary reporting; it should be read as a credible investigative lead that aligns with vendor lab conditions rather than a full, publicly audited admission until Phison or downstream vendors publish a detailed forensic bulletin.

---

Practical guidance — what Windows users and admins should do now​

This episode shows how high the stakes are when OS updates, controller firmware variants, and manufacturing processes intersect. The single most important defensive measure is straightforward:

• Back up critical data immediately. A robust, tested backup (local image + offsite copy) protects against device loss regardless of cause.

Beyond backups, follow these practical steps:

• Identify your SSD model and controller family.
• Use Device Manager, vendor tools (CrystalDiskInfo, vendor utilities), or PowerShell to list model and firmware.
• Check the drive’s firmware version against your SSD vendor’s support page. If a newer production firmware is available, read the vendor’s release notes before updating.
• If your drive is on a vendor advisory list or you suspect an issue, preserve the drive and contact vendor support—do not reformat or overwrite it if you need forensic recovery.
• Avoid sustained large sequential writes (large game installs, mass archive extraction, video exports) on patched systems until the drive’s firmware is verified as production‑hardened.
• For enterprise fleets: stage the KB deployment on representative hardware, validate workloads (especially sustained writes), monitor telemetry closely, and keep a rollback plan.

Updating drive firmware reduces risk but is not risk‑free. Firmware updates can fail or, in rare cases, brick devices. Use vendor tools, ensure power stability during updates, and follow vendor instructions exactly.

---

How to check if your drive might be at risk (step‑by‑step)​

• Open Device Manager → Disk drives. Note the model string shown.
• Download the official SSD vendor utility (for Corsair, SanDisk, WD, Kioxia, etc. and run it to display firmware and health info.
• Compare the displayed firmware string to the latest production firmware listed on the vendor support site. If the model shows a firmware labeled “engineering,” “EVT/DVT,” or resembling pre‑release tags, treat it as suspect and contact support.
• If you lack vendor tools, third‑party apps (CrystalDiskInfo) can show firmware revisions, but always verify the recommended update path with the SSD manufacturer.
• If you find a newer production firmware, follow the vendor’s documented update path—preferably using their update utility and with a verified backup in place.

---

Broader risks and implications for the PC supply chain​

This incident—if the engineering‑firmware hypothesis proves true—spotlights systemic supply‑chain risks:

• Mass‑flashing tools and factory programming steps are single points of failure. If the wrong image is applied en masse, large numbers of consumer units could ship with non‑production firmware.
• Downstream branding and vendor QA must verify firmware provenance before sealing boxes; gaps in traceability can leave end users exposed.
• Public transparency matters: vendors should publish serial‑range advisories when a supply‑chain firmware exposure is found so affected users can identify impacted units quickly.

From a fleet management standpoint, patching must go hand‑in‑hand with hardware validation cycles. Admins managing large numbers of endpoints should treat major OS rollouts as system‑integration events that require representative hardware validation and a conservative staging plan.

---

Strengths of the engineering‑firmware explanation​

• Explains reproducible community failures while aligning with vendor telemetry that found no systemic failure on production firmware.
• Matches the technical fingerprint (sustained writes + moderate-to-high occupancy) that amplifies controller internal activity and therefore exposes fragile firmware paths.
• Provides a clear remediation path: identify and reflash affected drives with the correct production firmware if they indeed shipped with development images.

---

Weaknesses, open questions and risks​

• Lack of public forensic artifacts. To be fully convincing, vendors should publish forensic logs: NVMe command traces, controller microcode logs, and serial‑range matching. So far, public statements emphasize negative results on production firmware rather than providing the specific forensic artifacts needed for a fully auditable chain of custody.
• Unknown scale. Without serial‑range disclosures, users and IT teams cannot easily determine the affected population. That uncertainty increases business risk and complicates remediation.
• Potential for coincidental failures. Some non‑Phison controller reports exist; whether those are related supply‑chain anomalies or independent hardware failures remains unresolved.

---

Recommended posture for users, builders and vendors​

• Consumers: prioritize backups first; check firmware with vendor tools; avoid heavy sustained writes on patched systems until firmware is confirmed.
• System builders and resellers: audit factory flashing processes; ensure mass‑programming tools use approved production images only; preserve traceability records for every batch.
• SSD vendors and controller makers: publish clear advisories when non‑production images are discovered in the wild; provide serial‑range matching and easy reflash paths; consider authenticated firmware images and in‑factory attestation steps that prevent accidental shipping of engineering code.
• IT administrators: stage Windows updates on representative hardware, maintain robust image/backups, and coordinate with hardware vendors before large‑scale OS rollouts.

---

Final assessment​

The engineering‑firmware hypothesis is plausible, coherent and—crucially—explains the earlier contradiction between community reproducibility and vendor non‑reproducibility. Multiple independent outlets and community labs documented the reproducible failure pattern, and secondary reporting indicates Phison engineers could reproduce the issue in lab conditions when the same non‑production images were present on sample drives. That combination of reproducible bench evidence plus limited laboratory confirmation forms a credible investigative lead. However, the incident is not fully closed: the absence of public serial‑range disclosures, detailed forensic artifacts, and an official, fully transparent vendor bulletin leaves open questions about scale and exact supply‑chain mechanisms. Until vendors publish the precise forensic evidence and a clear remediation roadmap, the prudent stance for users and admins is conservative: back up, verify firmware with vendor tools, stage updates, and avoid sustained heavy writes on systems with unverified drives.
This episode is a practical reminder of a systemic truth in modern PCs: software updates, firmware variants and factory processes do not operate in isolation. When they collide in the real world, even a small population of mis‑flashed devices can create a high‑impact, high‑visibility issue. The industry needs better factory attestations, traceability and transparent disclosures so that, next time, a narrow supply‑chain anomaly doesn’t become a broad public panic.

---

Practical checklist (quick reference)

• Back up immediately (local + offsite).
• Identify SSD model and firmware using vendor utility.
• Compare firmware to vendor support page; do not trust unsigned third‑party claims.
• If firmware looks unusual, contact vendor support and preserve the drive.
• For fleets: stage KB deployments and validate with representative hardware.

The story will likely progress: expect downstream vendors and Phison to publish further forensic detail or firmware advisories. Until those artifacts are public, treat the engineering‑firmware conclusion as a credible, evidence‑backed lead that requires vendor confirmation and serial‑range disclosure to be fully conclusive.

---

Source: TechRadar Windows 11 SSD failure saga takes another twist with a suggestion that glitchy firmware is to blame

 

[ChatGPT]

Phison’s latest public testing and community forensics have reframed the mid‑August Windows 11 SSD scare: what began as frantic reports that the Windows 11 August cumulative updates (commonly tracked as KB5063878 and the related KB5062660) were “bricking” NVMe drives now appears to be a narrower, cross‑stack compatibility incident driven largely by pre‑release/engineering firmware and non‑retail BIOS images used on test systems, not a universal flaw in Windows 11 itself. (tomshardware.com)

Background​

In early August, Microsoft distributed routine cumulative updates for Windows 11 24H2. Within days, community testers and several high‑profile reviewers reported NVMe SSDs disappearing from Device Manager or File Explorer during large, sustained write operations (frequently cited near the ~50 GB mark) and occasionally returning in a corrupted or RAW state after a reboot. That reproducible failure fingerprint — sudden disappearance mid‑write, unreadable SMART/telemetry, and data corruption in some cases — is what elevated anecdote into industry triage. (techspot.com)
Phison, the SSD controller designer cited most frequently in early reports, acknowledged it had been alerted to “industry‑wide effects” potentially associated with KB5063878/K5062660 and launched an internal validation program that would later cover thousands of test hours. Microsoft also investigated and reported it had found no telemetry‑based link between the update and a fleet‑level spike in drive failures. (neowin.net)

---

What the investigation found — the short version​

• Phison’s lab program logged extensive testing — over 4,500 cumulative testing hours and more than 2,200 test cycles — and could not reproduce a widespread failure on drives running production (retail) firmware. (pcgamer.com)
• Community forensic work (notably by a DIY group) discovered that many failing units were running engineering or pre‑release firmware images, and Phison confirmed it could reproduce the failure only when those non‑retail images were used. Drives on confirmed consumer firmware did not exhibit the same failure mode in Phison’s validation. (theverge.com)
• The empirical trigger in reproducible benches remained consistent: sustained sequential writes under heavy load, often to drives that were already partially full (commonly cited as >50–60% used). That workload stresses controller mapping tables, caching and garbage collection paths — precisely where firmware assumptions live.

---

Overview: why firmware and BIOS matter for NVMe SSDs​

Modern NVMe SSDs are embedded systems: the controller runs complex firmware that manages NAND translation, wear‑leveling, caching (including SLC caching), Host Memory Buffer (HMB) behavior, power states, error handling and thermal policies. Small changes in host behavior — for example, how Windows’ NVMe driver or buffering logic schedules DMA and flushes under heavy writes — can expose latent firmware race conditions or missing edge‑case handling in a controller image that has not been validated for retail use.
Two technical features were flagged repeatedly in community analysis and vendor commentary:

• Host Memory Buffer (HMB) and DRAM‑less designs: cheaper SSDs frequently use HMB to borrow host RAM for mapping tables. If the host alters allocation timing or command ordering, an HMB‑reliant controller can encounter unexpected timing that a production firmware should handle gracefully but an engineering build might not.
• Sustained sequential writes and occupancy: large continuous writes force controllers to aggressively update mapping metadata and terminate or flush internal caches; as a drive fills or caching strategies shift from SLC to TLC/QLC simulation, firmware must adjust. Edge cases here are where controller hang or metadata corruption can manifest.

BIOS versions can further muddy the waters: early or atypical BIOS builds used in review/test rigs may expose different PCIe enumeration behavior, power management states, or memory timings that in turn change HMB behavior or DMA ordering. When reviewers pair engineering SSD firmware with early BIOS images, their test platforms can diverge from the production experience consumer buyers see out of the box. Community results indicate that such combinations — engineering firmware plus non‑retail BIOS — were present in several high‑visibility reproductions.

---

How the narrative shifted: from “Windows is bricking drives” to “edge‑case supply‑chain firmware”​

The initial media and social coverage focused on temporal correlation: drives disappeared after an August Windows update. Correlation, especially when amplified by videos and influencer demos, created immediate alarm. But correlation is not causation.
Phison’s extended validation found no evidence of a fleet‑level problem with production firmware. Community testers then traced failing units to engineering firmware images, and Phison validated that reproductions were isolated to those non‑retail builds. Microsoft’s telemetry analysis also reported no measurable spike in hardware failure telemetry tied to the update across its fleet. The result is a reframing: the incident is best understood as a multi‑factor compatibility event, not a universal Windows regression. (tomshardware.com)
That reframing matters for accountability and remediation: if a large fraction of failing units were pre‑release firmware samples, the corrective action is firmware‑channel hygiene, clearer supply‑chain controls, and vendor advisories — not an OS rollback for millions of consumer machines. But the episode still exposes real risks for users and a PR crisis for the ecosystem.

---

Strengths of the response so far​

• Rapid joint investigation: Phison, Microsoft and SSD vendors coordinated lab validation and public statements quickly, which helped narrow hypotheses and prevented premature mass recalls. Their combined testing (notably Phison’s thousands of cumulative hours) gave the community an important, evidence‑based counterpoint to initial alarm. (pcgamer.com)
• Community forensic value: hobbyist test benches and DIY groups reproduced a narrow, repeatable failure fingerprint and tracked the presence of engineering firmware on failed units, providing the missing link that vendor labs later validated. This demonstrates the practical value of independent testing when paired with vendor cooperation.
• Clear, actionable vendor guidance: Phison and other vendors have emphasized updating to production firmware and using official vendor utilities, and have issued general best practices like proper heatsinks for heavy workloads to reduce thermal‑related anomalies. Those are realistic, immediately actionable mitigations for end users. (neowin.net)

---

Remaining risks and open questions​

• Data loss remains real for affected users: even if the problem is narrow, those who experienced corruption or RAW partitions suffered actual data loss. The fact that some reproductions required reformatting or vendor tools to recover means the risk cannot be dismissed as trivial. Backups remain essential.
• Supply‑chain provenance: engineering firmware images leaking into retail channels or to reviewers raises serious supply‑chain and QA governance issues. Until vendors publish serial‑range disclosures or an explicit post‑mortem, some uncertainty about the scope and exact code paths remains. Treat claims about absolute scale with caution until vendors publish full forensic reports.
• BIOS and platform variance: non‑retail BIOS builds used by media outlets or reviewers can create false positives. Vendors, reviewers and motherboard manufacturers should clarify when review units carry engineering BIOS and make those caveats explicit in any test content that could affect perception of product stability.
• Unverifiable or falsified documents: the episode included at least one widely circulated document that vendors called out as falsified. Any public claims based on such artifacts should be treated skeptically. When forensic evidence is not available, a cautious stance is warranted.

---

Practical guidance for Windows users and admins (immediate steps)​

If you own or manage systems with NVMe SSDs — particularly consumer NVMe drives shipped in the last two to three years — follow these steps to reduce risk:

• Back up critical data now. Do not trust a pending firmware or OS update when recent workloads include important writes.
• Check your SSD's firmware version using the vendor tool (Samsung Magician, WD Dashboard, Corsair SSD Tool, Crucial Storage Executive, etc. and compare against the manufacturer’s published production firmware. If your drive lists a firmware that sounds like “engineering”, “preview”, or has an unusual build string, contact the vendor for guidance.
• If updates are available from your SSD vendor, apply retail/production firmware updates only through the vendor’s official updater. Avoid untrusted or third‑party flashers.
• Update your motherboard BIOS to the latest production release from the manufacturer. Avoid beta or engineering BIOS images unless you explicitly need them for development or evaluation, and document their use.
• If you perform large, sustained writes (game installs, video exports, cloning, mass file copies), consider staging those operations: split large transfers into smaller chunks or avoid them immediately after applying system updates until you confirm system stability. Community reproductions show sustained sequential writes (often ~50 GB) as the common trigger.
• For heavy workloads, ensure NVMe drives have adequate thermal management: heatsinks or proper airflow can reduce thermal throttling and lower the incident surface for stress‑related faults. Phison and others have advised this as a general best practice.

---

For reviewers, media and OEMs: how testing must change​

• Disclose firmware and BIOS provenance: any published review or stress test should include explicit firmware and BIOS version strings. If the unit uses engineering images, label it prominently. Mislabeling or omission fuels false correlation.
• Use production channel firmware for public demonstrations unless testing explicitly targets pre‑production behavior. Engineering images should be confined to internal development labs.
• Collaborate with vendors before publicizing destructive reproductions: when a new failure pattern is observed, sharing logs and sample devices with vendors enables quicker verification and prevents misattribution. The rapid back‑and‑forth in this incident shows the tangible benefits of coordinated disclosure.

---

What vendors and Microsoft could do better​

• Publish transparent forensic post‑mortems: a detailed breakdown of the exact firmware code path or NVMe command sequence that fails on engineering builds would not only close the loop but would help firmware engineers, reviewer labs, and integrators avoid repeating the same mistake. Until such details are published, observers will reasonably treat vendor statements as necessary but incomplete.
• Improve firmware provenance controls in supply chains: audits that prevent non‑retail images from being flashed on devices intended for retail sale or for external review would reduce the risk of leaked engineering images.
• Provide clearer update guidance and detection tools: vendor utilities that can rapidly detect whether a drive is running engineering code, and that block risky operations (or warn users), would help consumers and IT administrators act decisively.

---

Assessing the reputational fallout and the lesson for Windows users​

This incident was a textbook example of how a credible, narrow technical failure — especially one demonstrated in striking, shareable video — can quickly be amplified into a perceived platform disaster. The lesson is multi‑fold:

• Consumers must insist on backups and cautious staging of system updates, especially in mixed or unmanaged environments.
• Reviewers and vendors must be rigorous in disclosing their test environment details. Transparency prevents panic.
• Vendors should continue to invest in robust production‑firmware validation and in mechanisms that prevent pre‑release images from entering channels where they can be mistaken for consumer firmware.

Phison’s extended validation — and the community’s complementary forensics — did not make the data loss cases disappear. But they did convert an initially alarming narrative into a narrower, more manageable set of problems: firmware provenance, BIOS/test‑platform hygiene, and the need for better supply‑chain discipline. Those are fixable problems; the immediate priority for users is to back up, verify firmware/BIOS versions, and follow vendor guidance.

---

Conclusion​

The August Windows 11 SSD episode is a cautionary tale about the interplay between OS changes, controller firmware, and test platforms. The most credible, evidence‑backed explanation today points to a small but consequential set of drives running engineering or pre‑release firmware (and in some reproductions non‑retail BIOS images) rather than an intrinsic flaw in Microsoft’s updates. That distinction matters: it directs remediation toward firmware channel governance, clearer reviewer disclosures and routine vendor firmware updates — not a wholesale rollback of a widely distributed Windows update.
For Windows users: prioritize backups, verify that your SSDs run production firmware from the manufacturer, keep motherboard BIOS up to date with official release builds, and avoid large, sustained write operations immediately after installing system updates until you have confirmed system stability. The combination of vendor testing and community forensics means the immediate systemic risk is now much lower than initial headlines suggested, but the event underscores that firmware provenance and transparent testing practices remain critical to platform reliability.

---

Source: Mezha.Media SSD failures with Phison controllers on Windows 11 are related to firmware and BIOS