When describing counterfeit prevention for microelectronic products, literature and standards tend to focus on packaged products. After the original release of AS5553, G19 committee participants discussed the need for counterfeit avoidance and detection protocols directed toward bare die products.
I recently received correspondence from an A&D contractor representative who observes “there seems to be little published about what suppliers have/are doing with material they already have.” Continue reading
The following paper presents an interesting case study and investigation into a suspect counterfeit capacitor finding …
After my wife and I visited the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston to see the “Samurai” exhibit this past week, my son suggested that standards may have been needed to detect counterfeit silk lace used in samurai armor. This comical interchange prompted some casual research into how our ancestors dealt with the the counterfeiting problem. I found information worth considering today for applying penalties associated with counterfeiting or altering various authentication and provenance tracking schemes in addition to penalties for counterfeiting the goods themselves.
The SAE G19A Test Laboratory Standards Development Committee is working on a new standard, AS6171, “Test Methods Standard; Counterfeit Electronic Parts”, intended to support AS5553. My understanding is that AS6171 will eventually replace the product assurance section that currently appears in AS5553A. Thus far, SAE G19A subcommittee has put forth ballots for four test method documents. All of these proposed test methods map test and inspections to one or more of five risk levels and refer to AS6171 for definitions and implementation of these risk levels. AS6171 is in the form of a working draft and has not yet been submitted for balloting.
A high level counterfeit prevention strategy is needed to address standards gaps and to resolve implementation issues that, to some degree, are driven by new and forthcoming US Government requirements directed to the aerospace and defense (A&D) Contractor Industry. Collaboration between A&D Contractor Industry companies is key to developing such a strategy, focusing limited resources and driving meaningful implementation at appropriate levels within the supply chain.
I offer the following thoughts on focus areas to include in a high level counterfeit prevention strategy developed from the perspective of A&D contractors.
“DLA announced that it will allow third-party marking on components in addition to work done by Applied DNA Sciences …”
More in EBN.
Legislation and regulatory requirements and standards gaps continue to present aerospace & defense industry and US government users with significant implementation challenges with respect to counterfeit part avoidance and detection. The counterfeit parts issue is similar to the lead-free electronics issue in that regulations drive the need for standards, but technical challenges and supply chain limitations must be recognized so that reasonable and implementable regulations and policies are developed in response to the threat. Though many of these challenges have been discussed in Industry and Government forums and described in trade literature and the media, many remain unresolved.
“Some of the nation’s top experts in computer hardware security gathered in Storrs this week to discuss new ways to thwart a growing international counterfeit electronics industry…”
More at UConn Today.
The Army Research Office (ARO) and CHASE Center at UConn organized a special Workshop on Counterfeit Electronics. This event included speakers from industry, government, and academia to share ideas, problems, and discuss issues and solutions related to counterfeit detection, prevention, and supply chain security and management. Among the variety of topics discussed, subject matter experts described the current state-of-the-art in the domain of counterfeit detection and avoidance.
