Master Odin-

Many thanks for your diatribe. In implementing counterfeit detection and
usage guidelines at my present company, for your part acquisition
preference list I have injected company engineering over-run parts (stored
in unsealed static bags in prototype kit boxes in the R&D lab), company
recycled parts from old inventory, and company recycled parts from old
engineering R&D designs. These are all above US brokers we have no history
with and (of course) foreign brokers we have no history with. Even the
"recognized broker" category gets broken down for cases where they can
provide paperwork showing they purchased the parts from an authorized
source.

Getting a recent prototype system built required all of these sources AND
the engineering of a temporary daughterboard to mimic one of those ethereal
TI eFuses!

Cheers!

Wayne Thayer

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 7:32 AM [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Yes! Sorry, I was away for a couple of days and just got back early this
> morning.
>
> In addition to AS5553 already mentioned, I found AS6081 (Counterfeit
> Detection for Distributors), DFAR 252.246-7000 and the portions of AS9120
> devoted to counterfeit detection all extremely valuable. Also, look at some
> of the reference documents inside of those.
>
> Joyce’s document also looks quite interesting but I haven’t had time to
> read through it.
>
> All of these have various detection methods outlined that when combined
> can be organized into categories of what to look for and the methods of
> detection at Purchasing (qualification of suppliers, order of use of 1.
> OEM, 2. OEM-certified distributor, 3. Recognized broker, 4. Back of
> not-so-recognized broker’s 1961 Rambler station wagon at the dock at
> midnight, and then at Receiving and Receiving Inspection (packaging
> anomalies, source of supply, etc.), Production Inspection including the use
> of pick/place verifier data, anomalies that show up at Inspection such as
> ink washing off (never happens on “real” parts), at Electrical Test, and so
> forth. Then there are many test methods including the use of temperature
> derating checks, and so on. Just too many to list, but all of them are
> applicable for different scenarios.
>
>
>
> The important thing to remember is that you are looking for an intelligent
> protocol of which detection methods make sense to use based on the various
> scenarios or potential clues that show up at different points in the
> Purchasing, Receiving, Receiving Inspection, Kitting, Assembly, Test, and
> Customer level (ack!). Every supply line engineer and Supplier Quality
> engineer should be familiar with all of the detection techniques and
> Analysis techniques detailed in these documents and have a comprehensive
> Counterfeit Detection Program in place to protect their company.
>
>
>
> In addition, the listed documents also tell about the requirements for
> REPORTING and HANDLING PROTOCOL of counterfeit components. Did you all know
> that it is actually a Federal crime to simply scrap out known or suspected
> counterfeit parts? You are not even supposed to return them to the supplier
> until after reporting them properly.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps those of you on this Forum, and especially I hope if we
> all respond with the recommended steps, we can shut down this whole
> counterfeit industry.
>
>
>
> Now, I know I will receive some letters arguing the distinction between
> levels of counterfeit, starting with “slightly reworked’ parts,
> “re-manufactured parts”, “re-identified parts”, “re-sourced parts”, etc.,
> and I don’t want to go there because I understand different levels of
> industry have different levels of comfort using parts that are perhaps not
> of perfectly pristine pedigree. That is just fine, as long as you know what
> you are receiving. But the real issue is just that; they may not WANT you
> to know what you are really receiving and there is simply no justification
> for things like packaging 10 real parts at the beginning of a reel of
> 10,000 parts with the other 9990 being complete blanks. Different companies
> have different levels of what I call acceptable pain. I do know that
> sometimes the counterfeits work better than the originals. Does that make
> it OK?
>
>
>
> Odin
>
>
>
> *From:* Wayne Thayer <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 12, 2022 2:15 PM
> *To:* TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>; Stadem, Richard D <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
>
>
> *External E-mail *--- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS.
> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> Hi Richard-
>
>
>
> Did you have any additional to share?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Wayne Thayer
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:25 PM [log in to unmask] <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Yes! That is one of them. Thanks Bhanu.
>
> From: Bhanu Sood <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:20 PM
> To: TechNet E-Mail Forum <[log in to unmask]>; Stadem, Richard D <
> [log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> External E-mail --- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
> Did you mean SAE's AS6171 and the dozen or so slash sheets (for example
> XRF, decap, x-ray, visual, CSAM etc.)?
> "Test Methods Standard; General Requirements, Suspect/Counterfeit,
> Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical Parts".
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 3:10 PM [log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> I will list them here tomorrow. I will do anything to help put the
> counterfeit market down the flusher.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of
> Tempea, Ioan
> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 2:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> ----
> External E-mail --- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
> O'Dean,
>
> Of course I would appreciate any standard numbers you can present. I have
> also seen this kind of documents, but can't recall where to find them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ioan
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : TechNet <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> De la part de
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Envoyé :
> février 09, 2022 15:02 À : [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Objet
> : Re: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> Yes, there are some good standards out there regarding counterfeit parts
> and detection methods. In those standards they note situations exactly as
> you described. Along with the first bunch of parts on the reel being good
> parts and the rest fakes, they showed how to use X-ray (as well as several
> other methods using a systemic, step-by-step checklist which included
> de-capping) to identify the fakes.
> I do not recall the Standards offhand, but I have them in the SOPs for
> receiving and receiving inspection departments in the client companies that
> I work for and can add them here tomorrow if anyone wants to know the
> standard numbers. None were IPC standards, they were what I call "other"
> standards, but they were sure helpful in putting together a Counterfeit
> Parts procedure that has eliminated all instances of fake parts getting
> built up into product.
> I am sure others on this forum can probably chime in with the numbers of
> the Standards for counterfeit detection and prevention.
> Odin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of
> Jerry Dengler
> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 1:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> ----
> External E-mail --- CAUTION: This email originated from outside GDMS. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
> Another cautionary tale.  Some years ago we resurrected an old assembly
> for a customer which had a few obsolete components.  These were sourced
> through brokers.  These components were inspected, solder ability verified
> and the first 2 components on each reel were decaped and inspected. Along
> the way we one of the components had many lots that were counterfeit, some
> very convincing until they were decaped.  On one of the last builds we did
> this component passed all incoming checks but when we started testing units
> they were all failing.
>
> It turned out that the first 10 components in the reel were genuine
> components but the rest were counterfeit!  So then we would take 2 from the
> middle of a reel to decap.
>
> This is now part of our strategy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerry Dengler
> Production Manager
> Pergamon Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf
> Of Rivera, Raye
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2022 2:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> It is a constant headache. I agree that visual and the steps you mention
> are good measures. I like x-ray too, because you can also often see the
> manufacturers internal markings which helps a lot. Ask your broker for
> their inspection report. Some of them have really good reports. Others, not
> so much.
>
> The other thing we are doing is control runs, where we build just two or
> three boards with components from a batch that might be suspect due to a
> new broker, age, or whatever. That way if there is a functional failure you
> at least avoid placing a few thousand bad parts. It is a nuisance, and you
> can't do it for every single part, but it can greatly reduce your risk.
>
> Best regards,
> RAYE RIVERA
> Quality Manager
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of
> Wayne Thayer
> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [TN] Anti Counterfeit
>
> [Warning] This email comes from an external source. Be careful of any
> embedded links and attachments.
>
> Greetings-
>
> The only way I've been able to keep parts moving in this environment of
> part shortages and 72 week lead times is by constantly finding substitutes.
>
> The least appetizing substitute option is offshore brokers. We are
> revising our counterfeit detection strategy for minimizing cost/benefit
> (and time).
> My inclination is to do careful visual inspections, especially labels and
> lead finish, followed by solvent testing and a simulated Pb-free soldering
> profile on samples of the lot. I also compare the decapsulated die faces
> with known genuine parts.
>
> Is anybody else working this issue? Our old corporate document suggests
> XRF and x-ray inspection, but I'm not seeing the value in those. XRF is a
> great way to see if your system is Pb-free, but I'm more interested in
> whether the leads were soldered to previously which a thorough visual
> inspection should find.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wayne Thayer
>
>
> --
>
>