Les nouveaux usages d'aujourd'hui seront les business de demain.
Revue de presse sur les tendances et évolutions technologiques utiles.
http://theitwatcher.fr/.
A lire sur: http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/processors/the-hidden-dangers-of-chopshop-electronics/
Clever counterfeiters sell old components as new, threatening both military and commercial systems
By John Villasenor & Mohammad Tehranipoor
Posted
Photo: Adam Voorhes
On 17 August 2011, Boeing warned the U.S. Navy that an
ice-detection module in the P-8A Poseidon, a new reconnaissance
aircraft, contained a “reworked part that should not have been put on
the airplane originally and should be replaced immediately.” In a
message marked “Priority: Critical,” the company blamed the part, a
Xilinx field-programmable gate array (FPGA), for the failure of the
ice-detection module during a test flight.
How could this have happened? Xilinx, based in San Jose, Calif., is a
highly respected manufacturer of FPGAs, and Boeing bought the
ice-detection module containing the suspect part from BAE Systems, a
reputable British defense company. The trouble occurred somewhere in the
supply chain upstream from BAE, which wound through companies in
California, Florida, Japan, and China. However, retracing that FPGA’s
path led not to Xilinx but to a Chinese company called A Access
Electronics. It apparently had turned a quick profit by selling used
Xilinx parts as new. BAE ended up purchasing about 300 suspect FPGAs,
many of them untested. Fortunately, most had not yet been installed on
planes.
To a suspicious buyer, a number of clues might have suggested that the
parts were not brand new. For example, parts stamped with the same
manufacturing lot code had different ceramic package shapes and four
different date codes. Some of the pins were shorter than the length
specified in the manufacturer’s data sheet. Some packages themselves
were chipped. But somewhere along the supply chain, someone accepted
used parts as new, and they ended up on U.S. Navy airplanes.
This incident, described in a hearing held by the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services
in November 2011, is only the tip of the iceberg. The global trade in
recycled electronics parts is enormous and growing rapidly, driven by a
confluence of cost pressures, increasingly complex supply chains, and
the huge growth in the amount of electronic waste sent for disposal
around the world. Recycled parts, relabeled and sold as new, threaten
not only military systems but also commercial transportation systems,
medical devices and systems, and the computers and networks that run
today’s financial markets and communications systems.
Photo: SMT Corp.Close-up: A specialist in counterfeit electronics at SMT Corp. uses a handheld USB microscope to examine a suspect component.
Usually, it’s good to recycle electronics products.
Ethical recycling companies properly dispose of the toxic ingredients in
discarded computers, printers, mobile phones, and other systems and
harvest the precious metals they contain. But not everyone in the
electronics recycling ecosystem acts ethically.
In theory, with proper screening, electronics components could be
safely reused in some low-cost applications, such as calculators and
remote controls, where tolerances aren’t particularly demanding. But
given the low cost of electronics parts for those products, such reuse
wouldn’t usually be worth the trouble. There’s far more economic
incentive to use recycled components as replacement parts in more
expensive systems with long service lifetimes.
But sometimes old components are misused. Some companies have built a
business model based on pulling old parts from cast-off products and
reselling them as new. Relabeled or otherwise altered parts masquerading
as new can fail prematurely in critical systems, such as those in
airplanes and cars, with potentially catastrophic results. A savvy consumer can often tell with a glance whether a
designer handbag or a pair of shoes is genuine or counterfeit. But
electronics counterfeits, hiding deep within products and systems, are
not so easy to detect. Very few of us open up gadgets to inspect the
components inside, and even if we did, almost none of us would know how
to distinguish good components from bad. Unethical recyclers of
electronics parts don’t need to fool everyone in a supply chain; often
they just need to fool a single company among the many that sit upstream
from an end product.
Today’s supply chains are built largely on trust. Company A sells a
part to Company B and warrants that it will function as specified.
Company B may then incorporate that part into a subsystem and sell the
subsystem to Company C, in turn warranting that the subsystem will
perform as designed. A part can pass through a half dozen or more
different intermediaries before it ends up in a finished product. To
move undetected through this chain, recycled parts need only function
well enough to pass a few tests that are conducted along the way—tests
usually designed to weed out accidental defects and design flaws, not to
identify parts that counterfeiters have specifically altered to
masquerade as something they are not.
Most known cases of electronics parts counterfeiting have been
uncovered by military supply chain investigations, sometimes triggered
when a key component fails. In part, that’s a reflection of the mismatch
between broader electronics-industry obsolescence cycles, which may be
as short as one or two years, and the life cycles of defense systems,
which may sometimes be decades. A market for replacement parts that were
last manufactured a decade ago creates ample opportunity for unethical
suppliers to relabel and resell scavenged parts.
But that’s not the whole story. The P-8A Poseidon aircraft, for
example, is a relatively new platform, so it’s not just old systems that
are targeted. Military-systems manufacturers find counterfeit parts
more often than do their commercial brethren, in part because they test
more often and more rigorously—they need to do so to make sure the parts
will work under extreme conditions. And under a U.S. law
in place since the end of 2011, U.S. government contractors are obliged
to be more diligent in screening parts destined for military systems,
in an effort to identify potential counterfeits.
There’s much less screening going on in the commercial community, and
the consumers and businesses that purchase electronics devices and
systems are often unaware of the potential risks posed by the parts they
contain. Recycled parts may get into the consumer- product supply chain
as well and just go undetected, although this is less likely when
companies manufacture products in large volumes and purchase parts
directly from their manufacturers or their approved distributors.
Photos: From top: Andrew Schmidt; Kenn Mann/U.S. Air Force; Boeing; Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway/U.S. Defense ImageryCounterfeits On Board:
An investigation by the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services
identified suspect components in the supply chains for [from top] the
CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter, the C-17 military transport aircraft, the
P-8A Poseidon sub hunter, and the F-16 fighter.
Recycled parts are just one segment of a vast and
fast- growing counterfeit electronics industry. In 2011, the
Semiconductor Industry Association pegged the cost of electronics
counterfeiting at US $7.5 billion per year in lost revenue and tied it
to the loss of 11 000 U.S. jobs. The problem isn’t limited to the United
States; electronics counterfeiting is a global concern.
Besides improper recycling, counterfeiting also includes parts that are
made in an authorized production run but fail testing and are sold
anyway instead of being destroyed, excess inventory intended for the
scrap heap that isn’t disposed of properly, and some parts that are
simply phony from the beginning and don’t work at all. But the most
pervasive problem is recycled parts, accounting for 80 to 90 percent of
counterfeit parts in circulation, according to a 2010 estimate by SMT Corp., based in Sandy Hook, Conn.
The U.S. government has long recognized the risks posed by counterfeit
parts. A 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce report on counterfeit
electronics in the Department of Defense supply chain noted that between
2005 and 2008 the number of companies reporting incidents involving
counterfeit chips more than doubled. In February 2012, market-intelligence firm IHS iSuppli
stated that “reports of counterfeit parts have soared dramatically in
the last two years,” with “1363 separate verified counterfeit-part
incidents” reported worldwide in 2011.
In some instances, counterfeit parts end up in high- performance
military systems like the Boeing aircraft. In another case that’s become
public, an investigation led by a branch of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security shut down Florida-based VisionTech
in 2010 and arrested several of its executives. The prosecution charged
certain individuals at VisionTech with importing thousands of shipments
of confirmed or suspected counterfeit parts from China that had been
improperly marked as military grade, some of which were purchased by
Raytheon Missile Systems and installed on circuit boards intended for
use in a radar-detection system on F-16 aircraft. Fortunately, Raytheon
was able to identify the presence of the counterfeits during testing of
the boards and didn’t install them in the planes.
In 2011, the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services collected data
[PDF] on 1800 cases involving a million suspect parts. The committee
investigated about 100 of those cases and found defective parts in the
supply chain for the Air Force C-17 military transport, the Marine Corps
CH-46 helicopter, an Army missile defense system, and more. The
committee asked the Government Accountability Office to set up a fake
company to purchase electronic parts for military systems online. The
GAO found suppliers willing to sell components having imaginary part
numbers, and even when the GAO provided real part numbers, the parts it
received were counterfeit.
The counterfeiting scam begins at the foot of a mountain of discarded electronics products that grows by some tens of millions of tons annually.
To harvest the components, recyclers heat circuit boards to a
temperature high enough—sometimes up to 400 °C—to melt the solder that
attaches them to the boards. Unethical recyclers with little concern for
how components will later be used may then bang the boards repeatedly
against a hard object to dislodge the parts, which they clean and then
sort by size, package style, number of pins, part number, and
manufacturer name.
Parts that emerge from this process with their labels and pins
undamaged go promptly back into the supply chain, and a dishonest
components distributor can quickly sell them as new. If, however,
extracting the components damages the labels or pins, there’s more work
to do. Pins are simple to straighten, and labels can easily be changed.
Unethical distributors often alter even undamaged labels to falsely
indicate that a part has a higher performance or operating range than it
actually does.
To relabel a part, the distributor sands off the original markings and
applies a black coating—a “blacktopping”—that’s almost indistinguishable
from the original topcoat. Traditionally, recyclers used blacktopping
materials that resembled paint; these could be detected using a simple
test such as swabbing the part with acetone, which would dissolve the
coating. In 2009, however, SMT discovered that counterfeiters had
developed sophisticated blacktop materials that were chemically more
similar to the origi nal coatings and therefore much harder to detect.
Once a new blacktop coating is in place, the counterfeiter relabels the
parts by printing new text onto the blacktop coating, and the recycled
parts are ready to sell.
Parts that emerge from this process pose many risks. First, to state
the obvious, they are no longer new. This means that expectations
regarding performance and lifetime are off. Second, the removal process
itself, which exposes parts to high heat, water, chemicals, physical
impacts, and other stresses, can damage them. Third, fraudulently
labeled parts may end up in the hands of unsuspecting buyers, who use
them in unsuitable operating environments where excessive temperature,
humidity, or vibrations could lead to premature failure. Technology offers some solutions to the counterfeiting
problem. Companies can scrutinize packages for signs that pins have
been straightened or indications that labels have been sanded or
repainted. They can also perform more detailed analyses, using X-ray,
scanning electron, or acoustic imaging to look inside a package for
things that might be amiss, like the improper placement of a chip within
its package.
Another telltale feature is a chip’s electrical behavior. Age makes
transistors sluggish, so signals can take longer to pass from one
portion of a chip to another. Statistical analysis of these path delays
and other electrical attributes can play an important role in counter
feit detection. Applied DNA Sciences, based in Stony Brook, N.Y., is taking another step to make it easier to detect counterfeits: It’s mixing DNA
synthesized from gene sequences found in plants into the ink used to
stamp chip packages. The company keeps the specific gene sequences used
to mark chips a secret so that few people can make or verify the marks.
Even the most sophisticated technological
countermeasures face challenges. As Tom Sharpe, vice president of SMT,
observes, “Our industry has gotten much better at detecting
counterfeits—but the counterfeiters are getting better as well.”
In this cat-and-mouse game, the economic equation gives an advantage to
the unethical distributors and the recyclers who supply them with
parts. They buy discarded components for a song and then sell them at
full price. They can then use some of the profits to finance the R&D
that makes them ever better at hiding evidence of recycling. Legitimate
component buyers and sellers, by contrast, often have razor-thin profit
margins. Testing adds to their costs, which may put buyers who perform
careful counterfeit-detection testing at a competitive disadvantage
compared with buyers who do little or no testing. It would be even more
costly, and in most cases impractical, for companies that buy subsystems
to test every component within them.
It’s bad enough that these recycled components are increasing the
dangers for those who operate military airplanes, helicopters, and
ships. But from the standpoint of a counterfeiter, the commercial supply
chain is in some ways a much more attractive target, because the market
is much larger and more diversified, the level of testing is lower, and
product life cycles are often shorter. This gives counterfeit parts
less time to fail and provides counterfeiters with more opportunities to
sell their wares.
The prospect of a commercial electronics supply chain laden with
counterfeit parts is sobering: Commercial parts are used in routers,
servers, storage hardware, and many other electronics systems that
enable the communications, financial, transportation, power, and other
critical infrastructure to run smoothly. While it is clearly not
practical to subject every commercial chip to the level of testing used
for flight-critical military systems, a well-designed, widely used
system of randomized testing explicitly designed to detect counterfeit
parts in the commercial supply chain could help dramatically. In
addition, with such testing we might be able to picture the true scope
of the counterfeit electronics problem. That picture, though, is likely
to be a grim one.
Technological solutions are indeed vital for detecting counterfeit
electronics. But detection technologies can identify problematic
components only after they have entered the supply chain. Truly solving
the problem will require making sure that far fewer counterfeit parts
enter the supply chain in the first place. That means making it harder
for counterfeiters to operate.
To put the squeeze on counterfeiters, we need a better way to track
parts as they move through the supply chain and then use that
information to call out unethical suppliers. Counterfeiters stay in
business because they suffer few or no consequences for their actions.
More-effective systems to log, report, and share information about
unethical suppliers could put a big dent in their business. Some
valuable industry and government counterfeit-reporting programs are
already in place; some government agencies collect information about
counterfeit incidents and report it to their suppliers. In addition, the
Independent Distributors of Electronics Association,
for example, keeps a list of suspected counterfeit incidents. But as
important as these efforts are, they likely capture information on just a
small fraction of the global trade in counterfeit electronics. We need
more companies—including those not directly involved in manufacturing
systems for government customers—to be aware of the problem and to
improve their efforts at detecting, tracking, and reporting counterfeit
parts.
We must also address this problem on an international level, and in
doing so we must acknowledge the geopolitical realities of the
counterfeit-parts industry. Counterfeiters stay in business because they
are at the upstream end of an opaque, loosely regulated global market
for parts. Trade negotiators need to talk more openly about the risks
posed by counterfeit electronic components. Governments can help by
closing regulatory loopholes that allow counterfeiters to operate and by
increasing whistle-blower protections to encourage reporting. Together,
these steps could make it much harder for recyclers and other
counterfeiters to operate.
Now that electronic products are everywhere, the threat of recycled
electronics parts is everywhere as well. Although we will never be able
to eliminate the threat of recycled components completely, we can and
should reduce the risks they pose. A modification to this article was made on 23 September 2013.
About the Author
Over the past 20 years, Villasenor,
a professor at UCLA and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, has seen globalization benefit the electronics industry.
He’s also witnessed an unwelcome by-product: the rise in counterfeit
chips. Nowadays, he says, the hardware supply chain is “even more opaque
than I and many other people suspected.”
Mohammad (Mark) Tehranipoor, an associate professor of electrical and
computer engineering at the University of Connecticut, has been working
on issues involving hardware security and trust and counterfeit
detection and prevention for the past 10 years. He says, “globalization
has brought many vulnerabilities into the hardware underlying
information systems. Years ago, no one ever imagined even discussing the
kinds of things we have to deal with today in terms of securing
hardware.”
It is quite dangerous for chop shop this is only because in most of chips the circuit is made to work together so if a section breaks the whole system is failed.
It is quite dangerous for chop shop this is only because in most of chips the circuit is made to work together so if a section breaks the whole system is failed.
RépondreSupprimerThanks
Charlie Electra
Buy Electronic Products