Counterfeit Integrated Circuits: A Rising Threat ...

[techman-001]

Counterfeit Integrated Circuits: A Rising Threat in the Global Semiconductor Supply Chain

There has been a lot of debate here recently regarding Chinese counterfeit Integrated Circuits with the most vocal supporters claiming that 'near enough is good enough' and that these IC's are "perfectly legal".

The following professional IEEE paper gives the opinion of experts about this matter for those who are interested.

In 2014, Ujjwal Guin, Student Member IEEE, Ke Huang, Member IEEE, Daniel DiMase, ohn M. Carulli, Jr., Senior Member IEEE, Mohammad Tehranipoor, Senior Member IEEE and Yiorgos Makris, Senior Member IEEE wrote the following paper:

ABSTRACT | As the electronic component supply chain grows more complex due to globalization, with parts coming from a diverse set of suppliers, counterfeit electronics have become a major challenge that calls for immediate solutions. Currently, there are a few standards and programs available that address the testing for such counterfeit parts. However, not enough research has yet addressed the detection and avoidance of all counterfeit parts - recycled, remarked, overproduced, cloned, out-of-spec/defective, and forged documentation - currently infiltrating the electronic component supply chain. Even if they work initially, all these parts may have reduced lifetime and pose reliability risks. In this tutorial, we will provide a review of some of the existing counterfeit detection and avoidance methods. We will also discuss the challenges ahead for implementing these methods, as well as the development of new detection and avoidance mechanisms.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6856206

[ataradov]

I'm having hard time finding arguments for straight up counterfeit parts. Close enough is not enough in that case.

But compatible copies, with their own separate part numbers and logos, are perfectly fine, IMO. GD32 and STM32 are different devices coming from different manufacturers. Neither is counterfeit if it comes from the respective vendor. If you assume they are close enough, then it is on you. They have different datasheets with different electrical characteristics.

The issue is that sometimes sellers on questionable platforms change device markings. But that's on buyers. Stop buying from questionable sources if authenticity matters to you.

[techman-001]

I'm having hard time finding arguments for straight up counterfeit parts. Close enough is not enough in that case.

But compatible copies, with their own separate part numbers and logos, are perfectly fine, IMO. GD32 and STM32 are different devices coming from different manufacturers. Neither is counterfeit if it comes from the respective vendor. If you assume they are close enough, then it is on you. They have different datasheets with different electrical characteristics.

The issue is that sometimes sellers on questionable platforms change device markings. But that's on buyers. Stop buying from questionable sources if authenticity matters to you.

You're the voice of reason as usual and I mostly agree.

What was stopping GD from making a "GD-AWSUM-99" MCU with different pinouts to the STM32F103C8, an English data sheet, and lots of Internet advertising with prices and sources of supply ?

We know that they would have to wait for the market to sample, approve and want the new product, so profits would take longer, much like the STM32F103 return for STM ?

However GD wanted a fast return *now* , profit *now*, screw the future, damn customer trust (which must be earned). Someone said "China takes the long road, wisely looking to the future" but I don't see that here, I see only the lust for a quick buck and damn the consequences.

The irony is that the Chinese have utterly ruined trust in their honesty of supply (because of their fakes) when they could have had their own homegrown products of high quality respected the world over. That's not going to happen now, at least for a LONG time because "China" now means "junk" in the West.

We both know what will happen if we fill a bottle of Jim Bean with insecticide and leave it near a pub on Friday night. Claiming that it was *his* fault when some uninformed drunken idiot poisoned himself won't keep us out of prison.

At least in the West it won't.

When I read "Stop buying from questionable sources" I read "Stop buying from China and their resellers". I can buy from Germany, Italy, the USA, France, Australia, UK, New Zealand, Spain, Russia, Ukraine etc with confidence, and I have many times, no problem.

I bought a hand engraved, real leather wallet/phone holder from Ukraine during the Pandemic, it took about 3 months to get here and it's clearly hand made, it's real leather, it's superb. It's as cheap as one made from fake leather from China but of the highest quality and I'm proud to own it. Go Ukraine!!

I recently spent $400 on parts from arrow.com, excellent low prices, mega fast free UPS economy, traceable paperwork, sealed gas filled satchels with moisture detecting dots.  Seeing how the global shortage hit like a Tsunami soon after, I only wish that I'd spent $1000 with Arrow instead.

[ataradov]

What was stopping GD from making a "GD-AWSUM-99" MCU with different pinouts to the STM32F103C8, an English data sheet, and lots of Internet advertising with prices and sources of supply ?

Nothing. They are making plenty of custom parts.

The part name here is not to confuse, but to indicate a possible source of replacement. Not a direct replacements, but an alternative part. None of the GD parts are actually direct replacement. There are minor, but significant differences, which would make running ST binary directly on the GD hardware impossible. It is virtually impossible to quietly pass GD devices as ST ones, they will not work for anything but trivial applications.

The bigger problem are those chips used on the blue pill, which are a direct clone.

However GD wanted a fast return *now* , profit *now*, screw the future, damn customer trust (which must be earned).

I'm all for different manufacturers making compatible parts. Western or otherwise. Register sets are not IP, there is no stealing involved. Ideally over time we could all agree on the best peripheral sets and just implement them everywhere. How many different UARTs do we need? USB is much better in this respect, at least for the host. They just made EHCI (and other xHCI) standard. And now there is no problem with writing drivers. I really wish they did the same for the device. This way I would not have to re-write drivers every time I use a new MCU.

When I read "Stop buying from questionable sources" I read "Stop buying from China and their resellers".

Not really. LCSC is an excellent supplier. Taobao/Ali and other stuff like this with individual sellers and no traceability are problematic.


And with RISC-V they are doing something no Western company is doing at all.

[janoc]

This constant intentional conflating of second source/compatible parts (which have been around ever since electronic industry has started) with counterfeits (parts that claim to be something they are not - e.g. because they are relabeled, have fake logos, etc.) only to be able to constantly harp on China and other non-western suppliers is really unhelpful and dishonest. 

Coming from a country where we had communism and where I remember well how the regime was I have certainly no love lost for the Chinese government. But let's get real, shall we?

Yes, counterfeits are a problem and nobody is disputing this - I have recently received fake "original and new" EEPROMs that didn't match the size on the label at all and even still contained data from the original device they were pulled out from (so much for "new"). But that does not mean that everything that behaves the same as something else is a counterfeit! 

By this definition any ECC 83 made by everyone else except RCA (which sold it as 12AX7) would have been obviously counterfeit too. Oh wait, Philips or Tungsram weren't in China, so it doesn't count ...

If you get a Gigadevice part relabeled as ST - yes, that would be a counterfeit. If it is not relabeled, there is no counterfeiting going on - you are getting exactly what is written on the box.


Can we finally stop this  ? Thank you.

[ralphrmartin]

One thing I haven't seen addressed in all this - does the current global chip shortage make the chance of getting fakes higher or lower? I presume the bad guys are also finding it hard to get chips made (in the case where they are making them), there are fewer duds to fall off the back of lorries, and so on. But what does that mean overall?

[SiliconWizard]

Whereas counterfeits are certainly a real issue, whatever some may claim (but claims from people having any kind of interest in the matter do not weigh much, should be obvious, although it looks like we are quickly forgetting what a conflict of interest is these days, but that's yet another topic), we have to consider *who* is ultimately responsible for them, and especially them being a problem.

There is a very simple way of stopping counterfeits (or even ICs that are too close to the original not to cause all kinds of issues): just not fricking buying them.
Buyers actually have more responsibility than sellers here.

That some non-western countries take advantage of the situation may look unfair, and even immoral (according to our western culture), but all they do really is to seize an opportunity.

We can't complain those people are violating our own values, when 1/ those values are not theirs and 2/ more importantly, we do very little to protect our own values when they do a lot to protect theirs. As blueskull not very gracefully evoked, we get screwed up by our own greed and our own inability to protect ourselves. Is it *their* fault?

So yeah, to mitigate this "threat", among others, fighting China will never work - or if it goes too far, it might end up very badly - we have to actually fight ourselves. Just my 2 cents.

[Algoma]

I often wonder why some IC manufacturers don't take pride in their products they produce, when its often be a perfectly acceptable alternative to a common part. As long as it meets and performs to their specifications, I would be quite happy to consider their product, and know where to get more in the future when they perform as expected.

It seems standard practice to always put some awkward, melted looking version of Texas Instrument's logo on every logic chip, even right beside their own initials. So far they've all worked as well as expected.

[ataradov]

In many cases fake logos are not put by the actual manufacturer, but by the people behind eBay and Ali shops. They either order blank unmarked parts, or remove the old markings.

[aandrew]

What was stopping GD from making a "GD-AWSUM-99" MCU with different pinouts to the STM32F103C8, an English data sheet, and lots of Internet advertising with prices and sources of supply ?

Why should they? GigaDevice has legit ARM IP cores and have made decent peripherals that closely mirror a competitor. How is this *any* different than the 50 different manufacturers of compatible control arm assemblies I can buy for my Passat on auto sites?

If they stole IP that's one thing, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with building a business around pin- and (largely) function-compatible parts. The onus is on the engineer to thoroughly test the compatible part to ensure it meets electrical and performance specs, but there's certainly nothing immoral about what GigaDevice has done as far as I can see. They've made a legitimate competitor series to some of ST's parts.

[rsjsouza]

A few aspects from my experience, where I tend to evaluate these market aspects from the stance of benefit or hazard to us (the end customer).

The suggestion to buy from reliable/known sources is not only to avoid fakes or used parts, but also parts that were stored improperly - these bite you in an assembly line due to many issues (cold solder, hygroscopic packaging, etc.). I have encountered even second-tier western distributors doing this.

The directed aim towards China's fake industry (IP stealing or reprint) is warranted, mostly due to the fact the state is inept or corrupt to enforce anything that goes against it. This is a hazard to the end customer, given the products are usually lower quality or poorly characterized. The comparison with vaccuum tubes, 741s, 555s, etc is weak at best, since the industry at the time eventually reached agreements and royalty exchanges in several cases. Besides, distribution and sales of these parts in a global scale were quite difficult in the earlier days.

The GD/ST scenario is quite interesting, given the market of "pin compatible" alternatives is not new and quite beneficial to the end user.

[langwadt]

I'm having hard time finding arguments for straight up counterfeit parts. Close enough is not enough in that case.

But compatible copies, with their own separate part numbers and logos, are perfectly fine, IMO. GD32 and STM32 are different devices coming from different manufacturers. Neither is counterfeit if it comes from the respective vendor. If you assume they are close enough, then it is on you. They have different datasheets with different electrical characteristics.

The issue is that sometimes sellers on questionable platforms change device markings. But that's on buyers. Stop buying from questionable sources if authenticity matters to you.

You're the voice of reason as usual and I mostly agree.

What was stopping GD from making a "GD-AWSUM-99" MCU with different pinouts to the STM32F103C8, an English data sheet, and lots of Internet advertising with prices and sources of supply ?

We know that they would have to wait for the market to sample, approve and want the new product, so profits would take longer, much like the STM32F103 return for STM ?

However GD wanted a fast return *now* , profit *now*, screw the future, damn customer trust (which must be earned). Someone said "China takes the long road, wisely looking to the future" but I don't see that here, I see only the lust for a quick buck and damn the consequences.

like all the IBM compatible PCs or Intel compatible cpus?

[technix]

like all the IBM compatible PCs or Intel compatible cpus?

Exactly. If we take STM32F103 as the IBM PC, we would have:

* GigaDevice GD32F103 with its 96MHz Cortex-M3 ~ a Compaq with Intel 8088 and 7MHz clock in it,
* Artery AT32F403A with its 240MHz Cortex-M4F ~ a Gateway with an NEC V20 and a 20MHz clock in it,
* GigaDevice GD32VF103 with its RISC-V ~ a Compaq but somehow have a W65C816 hacked into it.

Every chip on the left would be as legal as the PC on the right would be, as long as it is clearly marked with its real manufacturer's logo. (Although in the case of STM32F103, ST has a trademark on the verbiage "STM32" so the part number also has to be altered somehow to avoid that trademark.)