New Standard Released: AS6081 – Fraudulent/Counterfeit Electronic Parts: Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and Disposition – DistributorsCounterfeit Electronic Parts; Avoidance Protocol, Distributors

AS6081 has been published.

More at SAE International

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “New Standard Released: AS6081 – Fraudulent/Counterfeit Electronic Parts: Avoidance, Detection, Mitigation, and Disposition – DistributorsCounterfeit Electronic Parts; Avoidance Protocol, Distributors

  1. Here is an essay on my personal assessment of shortcomings associated with AS6081…

    http://wp.me/p263iE-8h

    I also wish to share feedback from the SAE G19D subcommittee is response to these issues….

    “The current minimum set of required tests in AS6081 was mutually established among the committee members and is based on the current level of confidence we have in the Organization’s (Distributor’s) and Supplier’s ability to conduct adequate tests and inspections for suspect counterfeit detection. …
    The required tests currently stop short of electrical testing, as it was felt that a significant majority of Distributors do not have the Engineering expertise to specify electrical tests or to interpret electrical test results. …
    It is felt that as the Parts Distributor and Supplier base increase their level of Engineering capability (or perhaps through certified test laboratories) that the AS6081 committee will incorporate electrical test (and other engineering-intensive tests) as requirements in a future revision of AS6081.”

  2. Steve Ingardia says:

    Have they heard of subcontracting a competent test house?? Wow, that is a huge shortcoming as that is a key part of counterfeit detection. I understand it is expensive, but this will give people who don’t understand the issue a false sense of security and force Supplier Quality Engineers to have to explain why it is not sufficient that the distributors meets 6081.

  3. Owen Peters says:

    I know this is a hotly debated subject, but in my opinion, all the more reason to require DNA marking from OCMs for authentication.

  4. KELLI KERR says:

    Henry, what about the AS6081 4.2.1.3 section? In your opinion, how are Independent Distributors supposed to stay in business if we have to tell our customers where to get the parts? It seems we should be required to keep our sources on file…say for 10 years.
    Gosh, I do believe this clause would put us out of business. Any suggestions?

  5. […] in balancing effective counterfeit avoidance and detection requirements and addressing the limited capabilities of lower level suppliers, particularly small businesses. In some cases, standards committees set the level of minimum […]

  6. I am not sure the OCM’s or myself agree with Owen’s comments:

    As the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) said in a public letter to DLA:

    http://www.semiconductors.org/clientuploads/directory/DocumentSIA/Nov%2015%202012%20-%20Defense%20Logistics%20Agency%20Response%20from%20SIA%20FINAL.pdf.

    “We believe that Applied DNA’s technology will not provide the security the DLA seeks”

    “We believe that it is possible for a counterfeiter to transfer a marker that has been applied to an authentic device to a counterfeit one either physically or by cloning the marker. A sophisticated counterfeiter could sample a marker from an authentic device, clone the DNA from the marker and affix the cloned DNA to a counterfeit device”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: