Cover story Semiconductor Counterfeiting The myths and the methods used to uncover the truth


Rochester Electronics explores the issue of semiconductor counterfeiting, discussing the methods used to create counterfeit products and the risks they pose to supply chains. The article highlights the only foolproof solution: sourcing from authorised suppliers like Rochester, who guarantee 100 per cent authentic and reliable components.


C


ounterfeits come in many guises. The most basic defi nition of a Counterfeit is ‘an imitation intended to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as


genuine, for profi t.’ In times of supply shortage, or where component obsolescence limits availability, the prevalence of counterfeit devices often multiplies.


As awareness increases, so does sophistication We have moved far beyond incorrect manufacturers logos and IC packages with no die inside caught by the simplistic visual inspection testing used by those following AS6081. The Counterfeiters now have very sophisticated operations as the potential gains can be enormous. Customers whose normal supply routes prove insufficient


may assume unauthorised or gray market sources are the only solution; and that ‘Testing’ can eliminate quality risks. Nothing could be further from the truth; but there ARE zero- risk sourcing options available.


What is a Counterfeit Semiconductor? In the Semiconductor world Counterfeits include: • Non-Functional or scrap product which is re-marked as good and re-sold.


• Functional yet sub-standard product purchased by the counterfeiter remarked and re-sold as full grade product at an increased price.


• Re-cycled and recovered components re-sold as new. In all these cases, the process of etching back the


original external markings with aggressive chemicals or even mechanical grinders can result in internal bond or substrate damage. Or the chemical residues from the


06 October 2024 www.electronicsworld.co.uk


cleaning process, slowly enter and contaminate the device, causing bond-pad or bond-wire failures in- service. The process of recovering previously used semiconductors from old PCB’s can also result in catastrophic heat and/or mechanical damage. Recovery of the IC from the PCB itself is normally the last step of a long scrap trail which includes; a previous working life; and a return-for-recovery route through an uncontrolled storage environment. Exposure to excessive humidity, water, and salt is often routine. This process can produce an authentic used product that has questionable reliability. Authenticity does not automatically mean Reliability. Identifi able surplus stock and traceability provides no guarantee regarding the storage conditions encountered during the components complete shelf-life. The consequences of allowing sub-standard product


to enter the supply chain may include: • Reduced production yields and increased rework. • Increased in-service failures and reduced reliability. • Heightened risks and financial liability associated with catastrophic system failure. • Cost of reputational damage.


What does ‘100 per cent Tested’ REALLY mean? Customers may incorrectly assume ‘Testing’ provides a 100 per cent genuine guarantee. At its most basic, 3rd party testing comprises one or some of the following: • Paperwork and Visual Inspection: Unlikely to identify the professional counterfeit devices. Traceability documents & certificates are also regularly forged to support the overall deception.


• X-Ray Inspection: Unlikely to identify fraudulently up-screened, well-marked recovered & re-used, or recovered failed-test devices.


• Basic Continuity or Functional Testing: Will not identify the fraudulently upscreened or well-marked recovered & re-used devices


• Full Functional Testing: The datasheet only provides a subset of the characteristics tested by the Original- Chip-Manufacturer (OCM). Is Functional Testing carried out over the full


temperature range? When functionally testing a device, FAULT


COVERAGE is critical. Without 100 per cent test fault coverage, the device WILL have residual failures.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50