SAN FRANCISCO -- Counterfeits are here to stay. The question is, How to minimize their effect?
That was the takeaway from a well-attended technical session at the annual Design Automation Conference here this week.
Matt Sale, from the Crane Division of the Naval Service Warfare Center, spoke about clues and detection. He explained counterfeits as “a lot of reworked, refurbished parts that are sold as if they are new.” Crane has experienced this issue, he said, and uses a combination of x-rays showed and chemicals to determine bad parts. The group, he says, has spotted different lead frames in the same lot.
Big red flags, he added, are different size pin 1 indicators, date codes that don’t make sense, and recoated leads. “The problem is that even if the parts are functioning correctly, the way they are handled is beyond belief.” He spoke of ESD damage and mishandling as huge concerns.
“Counterfeiting is profitable,” Sale noted. In one particular case he offered, counterfeiters were taking parts that were originally two cents apiece, and they were harvesting die, repackaging them, and then reselling them for $38 apiece. Talk about a markup.
The most frequently knocked off electronic parts, according to Sale, are analog ICs (25.2%) and microprocessors (13.4%). To detect these parts, he offered a few options, visual inspection being the first. Detecting bad parts that way is getting more difficult, however, as counterfeiters are getting better at what they do. Another option, functional electronic testing, takes time and money. The question, he says, is can we make it less profitable? “There really isn’t a way to end it completely. Only by working together can the true solution be found.”
“Counterfeits are everywhere,” added Carl McCants, Ph.D., of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Discussing a DoD-centric supply chain, he said, “We rely on all these people to say the parts are good. This system depends on a safe supply,” and compromise can be introduced “at any step” in this supply chain: parts and materials; board assemblers; avionics and OEMs; integrators, and operators.
Defense platforms have a longer lifespan than others, McCants said. A defense product, such as aircraft, can have a lifespan of 20 or more years, which means reliability for the length of its lifespan is extremely important.
William Bryson from Analytical Solutions in Albuquerque, NM, said his company performs counterfeit device investigation as part of its offerings. However, his firm uses the term “suspect” in place of “counterfeit” at the request of their customers for legal reasons. The company performs external visual inspection. (Analytical Solutions has a Dage XD 7500-NT machine for 3D x-ray.) They also perform internal visual inspection: die verification, de-encapsulation, etc.
“Counterfeiters are now doing microblasting,” he said, which he said can usually be detected with visual inspection.
The best practices Bryson suggested are use of authentication or encryption codes, embedding of security markings, using unique labels, and embedding RFID.
Finally, Peilin Song provided his take on counterfeit detection with the use of light emission. Security issues he pointed out include software, hardware authentication, and hardware Trojans.
If combining electrical testing with imaging, one can observe light emission. Song showed photos of the tests his firm performed using this technique, and it was instantly obvious when a known good part was compared to a rival counterfeit. Leakage emission increases with current increase. When you view a chip before and after design changes, you can see simulation differences in a colorful “map”.
Challenges with imagining, he said, are detector sensitivity and optical resolution. With simulation, time is needed as well.
What the panel ultimately mentioned was cost. Cost was also mentioned during the question and answer session, when more questions were raised than answered. Has the government and its policies caught up with the technology and the problem? How can industry get commercial companies more interested in this problem and more apt to spend money to help curb it? What can you do from a design standpoint? How do you really know if you’re dealing with an authentic chip? It may look authentic, but have incorrect functionality. Is there anything we can do from a materials standpoint? How much risk are we willing to take on? “Sometimes zero,” one panelist noted.
“Testing is thorough and justified” in the defense sector, one panelist said. Can it turn into a value proposition that pays off? It all comes down to willingness to change policies.
On the Floor
While the technical sessions ran the gamut from chip design to practical component issues, most exhibitors at DAC were focused on the former.
Leslie Landers from Sigrity (last year’s PRINTED CIRCUIT DESIGN & FAB NPI Award winner for System Modeling and Simulation Tools) said DAC’s attendees are more “chip-centered” than in the past, but the booths predominantly centered on software, with a clear disconnect between software chip analysis and the actual chips themselves.
Agilent Technologies was showcasing its EEsof EDA software, in addition to a new capability for its ADS platform for RF/microwave circuit design, which is for high-speed SerDes design. National Instruments was showing its DSP design module, a high level synthesis tool. Sonnet Software provided free copies of its Sonnet Lite 13 software, and NEC featured its CyberWorkBench to save time and speed the design process.
Intel’s system modeling and simulation tools team provided CoFluent, and Xilinx was presenting four technical sessions: Vivado design suite, IP and system-centric design; high-level synthesis, and implementation and analysis.
The big news for Cadence was its just announced collaboration with TSMC on 3D-IC design infrastructure development. TSMC is expected to begin production on its chip-on-wafer-on-substrate product in 2013. “Design is key” for 3D – the “marriage of ICs and packages” – the Cadence team said.
The show floor was bustling, particularly in large booths like Mentor Graphics’. Exhibitors all said the first day was the busiest and that the show was particularly worthwhile.
DAC’s 2013 conference will be in Austin, TX.
