Distribution is not authorized outside of the GIDEP participant s organization. GOVERNMENT - INDUSTRY DATA EXCHANGE PROGRAM PROBLEM ADVISORY 1. TITLE (Class, Function, Type, etc.) 2. DOCUMENT NUMBER Suspect Counterfeit, Microcircuit, Flash Memory, EEPROM 8M x 8 QP4-P-17-01A 3. DATE (DD-MMM-YY) 17-FEB-17 4. MANUFACTURER AND ADDRESS 5. PART NUMBER 6. NATIONAL STOCK NUMBER Intel Corporation DT28F640J5-150 Not Available 2200 Mission College Blvd 7. SPECIFICATION 8. GOVERNMENT PART NUMBER Santa Clara, CA 95052-8119 Not Available Not Available 9. LOT DATE CODE START 10. LOT DATE CODE END A025 (June 2000) A025 (June 2000) 11. MANUFACTURER S POINT OF CONTACT 12. CAGE 13. MANUFACTURER'S FAX Not Available 34649 Not Available 14. MFR. POC PHONE 15. MANUFACTURER S E-MAIL Not Available Not Available 16. SUPPLIER 17. SUPPLIER ADDRESS 18. SUPPLIER CAGE Free Components Co Ltd Shenzhen, CN Not Available 19. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION / DISCUSSION / EFFECT Amendment A is being issued to correct a typo in the title. The suspect counterfeit devices, DT28F640J5-150, were purchased by Electronic Components Inc (ecomp) from Free Components Co. Ltd in May, 2009. Upon receipt the devices were subjected to electrical testing at 25 C, -20 C, +85 C and visual/mechanical inspection. Of the 185 devices delivered there were two (2) electrical rejects. The remainder of the lot passed electrical and visual inspections. In June of 2009, 179 of these devices were delivered to Raytheon Corp and were accepted. In November of 2016, Raytheon performed a detail analysis of these devices using present-day counterfeit detection methods. The report,, is attached to this Problem Advisory. The Raytheon report notes several anomalies and concludes that these are suspect counterfeit devices. Note: The manufacturer identified in block 4 is the entity whose product may have been counterfeited. This reporting convention is necessary to facilitate GIDEP database searches for suspect counterfeit products and is by no means intended to imply that the manufacturer identified in block 4 is involved with the suspect product. 20. ACTION TAKEN/PLANNED ecomp has reviewed the Raytheon report and concurs that these devices could be suspect. The supplier, Free Components Co., was contacted and replied that there have not been any reports of counterfeit or other problems with these devices (attached). ecomp has not purchased any devices from this supplier since 2009. It is intended that this Problem Advisory serve as notification to other users that these vintage devices may be suspect counterfeit. 21. DATE MFR. NOTIFIED/ SUPPLIER NOTIFIED 17-DEC-16 22. MFR./SUPPLIER RESPONSE 23. ORIGINATOR ADDRESS/POINT OF CONTACT X REPLY ATTACHED Paul Peterson, Electronic Components Inc 296 Irving St NO REPLY Framingham, MA 01702 ppeterson@ecompbiz.com (508) 881-8399 24. GIDEP REPRESENTATIVE 25. SIGNATURE 26. DATE Richard Nadeau Signature on File 17-FEB-17 GIDEP Form 97-2 (September 2009) Please refer to the complete distribution policy at the GIDEP member s website.
COUNTERFEIT ANALYSIS REPORT - REACHBACK PAGE 1 OF 25 PART TYPE: Flash Memory MANUFACTURER: Intel Corp CUSTOMER PART NUMBER: DT28F640J5-150 MANUFACTURER PART NUMBER: DATE CODE: 025 (June 2000) GENERIC PART NUMBER: QUANTITY: 88 LOT NUMBER: A0257488 CUSTOMER REFERENCE NUMBER: CUSTOMER P.O. NUMBER: 72-RYEC-06-3696 Broker Name: Electronic Components Inc Broker P.O.Number: CUSTOMER P.O. LINE ITEM: Revision History Rev Revision Description Date - Initial Report 11/15/2016 A Changed procurement information in section I from SAS to IDS procurement. 11/16/2016 Disposition Summary: Visual examination of 45 devices reveal the presence of a blacktopping material on the top surface of the devices. The top surface of the devices visually appeared different from the sides of the devices. The pin one indicator on all devices appeared to have been filled in with a blacktopping material, giving them a rough, granular, shiny appearance. These two findings were an indication of blacktopping having been applied to the top of the devices. Grinding marks were also found on all devices. The grinding marks were consistent with a device which has been grinded/sanded down to create a new fresh surface for the application of a blacktopping material and/or remarking of the devices. The leads of the devices appeared to have been replated which could indicate prior use of the devices. Physical dimensions were conducted on 3 devices. One device passed all measurements without any anomalies. Two devices passed all measurements except for the Lead Tip Angle (Θ). The failure is not necessarily an indication of a suspect counterfeit condition. Previous extensive handling of the devices, indicated by the replating of the leads, could have attributed to the increase in Lead Tip Angle. During Real-Time X-Ray examination, the devices were found to have 3 different lead frames (Type A, Type B, & Type C). Out of the 46 devices examined, 34 devices were of Type A with large dice, 1 device was of Type B with a smaller die, and 11 devices were of Type C with large dice. Out of the 85 devices electrically tested, 71 devices passed testing without any anomalies. Samples 2, 3, & 60 initially failed read_id functional as well as other functions; however, all three samples passed testing after being retested a 2 nd and 3 rd time. Samples 4, 5, 20, 21, 23, & 36 failed testing initially due to the devices not being blank; however, all samples passed a 2 nd round of testing after being erased. Samples 9, 11, 22, & 82 failed electrical testing due to the devices not being blank and could not be erased. When sample 11 was attempted to be erased, the device says it was blank; however, when the device was retested the device was not blank. Sample 50 failed electrical testing due to contact failure.
PAGE 2 OF 25 Disposition Summary Continued: Resistance to Solvents (RTS) testing revealed several anomalies. SEM imaging of Sample 9 showed two distinct surfaces on the top and side of the device, which is an indication that the device was blacktopped. SEM imaging also showed the pin one indicator to be filled in with material. Cross-sectional analysis found a thin layer of blacktopping material on the top surface of the device. The application of Acetone, NMP, and DynaSolve 750 all removed blacktopping material from the top surface of the devices. Internal examination of 3 devices (2 type A lead frame, 1 type C lead frame) found anomalies. The construction of the two devices were not similar to one another. Furthermore, the devices with type A lead frame had the marking 28X640J5 as opposed to the expected 28F640J5 marking. Type A devices had a large dice. Also, the packages were marked mc2000 and the dice were marked mc 97. Both the package and die mask set revision should match one another. The device with lead frame type C had a die marked with 28F640J5A. The A denoted a revision of the die from 0.40 μm process technology (p/n DT28F640J5150) to 0.25 μm process technology (p/n DT28F640J5A150) which occurred on April 26, 2002. The date code of these devices is 025 (June 2000) which is before the PCN of April 26, 2002. Thus, these devices should not have an A at the end of the part number on the die. Type C device had large dice. No other anomalies found. Based on the summarized findings above, these devices are considered suspect counterfeit devices as well as nonconforming. Suspect Counterfeit Disposition: Yes No Nonconforming: Yes No Aryn Hernandez / Christopher A Wills Carlos Cuellar 11-16-16 COUNTERFEIT TEST ANALYST CONCURRENCE DATE
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION PAGE 3 OF 25 Qty. Tested Anomaly Qty. Tested Anomaly A Background History Review 88 0 C Qualification 88 0 B Product Source 88 0 D Comparison Sample Summary: A. These parts are a manufactured product of Intel Corp. No documentation was provided by Electronic Components Inc. that indicated traceability to Intel Corp. These devices are a part of a reachback counterfeit analysis effort with initial testing having been performed previously by SMT Corp. This analysis was also intended to support initial suspect rendition. B. Parts were purchased by Raytheon IDS from Electronic Components Inc. on PO# 72- RYEC-06-3696. Due to Electronic Components Inc. not being listed as the OEM for these devices, a counterfeit risk mitigation test was performed per Raytheon policy. C. These devices are not military standard parts, thus are not bound by any QPL/QML document. Additional Analysis n/a n/a II. DATA SUMMARY Qty. Tested Anomaly Qty. Tested 1) External Examination 45 45 5) Resistance to Solvents 3 3 2) Physical Dimensions 3 2 6) Solderability 3 0 3) Radiograph 47 47 7) Internal Examination 3 3 4) Electrical Parametric Testing* 85 14 8) Material Analysis 3 3 * = Three samples were taken for DPA prior to electrical testing. Thus only 85 samples were tested. Anomaly
PAGE 4 OF 25 III. RESULTS OF INSPECTION / TESTS 1. External Examination Per MIL-STD- 883J Method 2009.12 Per IDEA-STD- 1010-B Paragraph 10.3.1 S/N(s) 1 45 Evidence of Remarking: Yes No Lead or Package Damage: Yes No Other Anomaly: Yes No Reference Figure(s): 1 19 Comments: A quantity of 45 samples were visually examined for signs of alteration or other anomalies. The pin one indicator on the devices appeared to be filled in with extra material. (Figures 12 & 15). Multiple signs of grinding/sanding were found on the devices as indicated by the grinding marks on the devices top surface (Figures 15 18). The leads of the devices appeared to have been replated (Figure 19). Aryn Hernandez 08/25/16 Analyst Date 2. Physical Dimensions Per - Intel_Packaging.pdf S/N(s) 1 3 Anomaly Yes No Reference Page(s): 23 Comments: A quantity of 3 devices were dimensionally measured. One device passed all measurements. Two of the three devices passed all measurements except for the Lead Tip Angle (Θ). The failure is not necessarily an indication of a suspect counterfeit condition. Previous extensive handling of the devices, indicated by the replating of the leads, could have attributed to the increase in Lead Tip Angle. No other anomalies were found. Aryn Hernandez 08/25/16 Analyst Date
PAGE 5 OF 25 3. Radiographic Review Per MIL-STD- 883J Method 2012 Per IDEA-STD- 1010-B Paragraph 11.4 Conventional (X-Ray Film on File) S/N(s) 1 47 Real-Time Anomaly Yes No Reference Real-Time Figure(s) 20 25 Comments: A quantity of 47 devices were examined via Real-Time X-Ray analysis. During examination, the devices were found to have 3 different lead frames (Type A, Type B, & Type C). Out of the 47 devices examined, 34 devices were of Type A with a large die (Figures 20 & 21), 1 device was of Type B with a smaller die size (Figures 22 & 23), and 11 devices were of Type C with large die size (Figures 24 & 25). No other anomalies were found. Robert Barte 08/30/16 Reviewed By Date 4. Electrical Parametric Testing Per - DT28F640J5.pdf Test parameters: Electrical Specifications S/N(s) 1 85 Anomaly Yes No Reference Component Test Report: On File Reference Figure(s): n/a Comments: A quantity of 85 devices were electronically tested. Out of the 85 tested devices, 71 devices passed electrical testing without any anomalies. Samples 2, 3, & 60 initially failed read_id functional as well as other functions, however all three samples passed testing after being retested a 2 nd and 3 rd time. Samples 4, 5, 20, 21, 23, & 36 failed testing initially due to the devices not being blank, however all samples passed a 2 nd round of testing after being erased. Samples 9, 11, 22, & 82 failed electrical testing due to the devices not being blank and could not be erased. When sample 11 was attempted to be erased, the device says it was blank, however when the device was retested the device was not blank. Sample 50 failed electrical testing due to contact failure. The raw data from electrical test is on file under internal job number CT16-0345 and is available upon request. No other anomalies found. Brain Steffan 09/15/16 Analyst Date
PAGE 6 OF 25 5. Resistance to solvents Per IDEA-STD- 1010-B Paragraph 10.3.2 S/N(s) 9, 11, 19 Anomaly Yes No S/N Findings Reference Figure No.(s) 9 Blacktopping 26 30, 32 11 Blacktopping 31, 36, 37 19 Blacktopping 33 35 Reference Figure(s): 26 38 Comments: A quantity of 3 devices (Sample 9, 11, & 19) were subjected to RTS testing. SEM imaging of Sample 9 showed two distinct surfaces on the top and side of the device (Figure 26), which is an indication the device was blacktopped. SEM imaging also showed the pin one indicator to be filled in with material (Figure 27). Sample 9 was cross-sectioned for further analysis. Cross-sectional analysis found a thin layer of blacktopping material on the top surface of the device (Figures 28 30, & 38). The scrape test was performed on all samples; however, the results were inconclusive. Solution A did not remove any markings from the devices (Figure 31). The application of Acetone, NMP, and DynaSolve 750 all removed blacktopping material from the top surface of the devices (Figures 32, 33, & 36 respectively). Christopher A Wills 09/23/16 Analyst Date 6. Solderability Per MIL-STD 883J Method 2003 Per IDEA-STD 1010-B Paragraph 11.1 S/N(s) 9, 11, & 19 Anomaly Yes No Reference Figure(s): 39 & 40 Comments: A quantity of 3 devices were tested for lead solderability. All 3 devices passed solderability without any anomalies. Solder completely wetted to all leads of all devices. Christopher A Wills 09/23/16 Analyst Date
PAGE 7 OF 25 7. Internal Examination Per MIL-STD- 883J Method. 2010.14 Per IDEA-STD 1010-B Paragraph 11.7 Getter Material: Yes No S/N(s) 9, 11, & 19 Anomaly Yes No S/N Findings Reference Figure No.(s) 9 Anomaly 41 & 42 11 Anomaly 43 & 44 19 Anomaly 41 & 42 Comments: A quantity of 3 devices were internally examined. Two devices had the type A lead frame (Sample 9 & Sample 19) and one device had the type C lead frame. Devices of type A and C appear to have large sized dice. The two dice are similar in size to one another. The 2 devices with type A lead frame had the markings 28X640J5 and mc intel 97 on them. The 28X640J5 marking differs from that of the part marking which does not have an X. The mask set revision of the die is labeled as mc 97 as opposed to mc2000 which is label on the package of the die. Thus the mask set revisions do not match. The device with lead type C had the markings 28F640J5A and mc intel 2000 on it. The marking 28F640J5A differs from the marking on the package of 28F640J5 in that the marking on the package does not contain an A. A product change notice (PCN) was issued for these devices on April 26, 2002 for plans to convert their 64Mb J5 StrataFlash Memory product from 0.40 μm process technology (p/n DT28F640J5150) to 0.25 μm process technology (p/n DT28F640J5A150). Since these devices date code is 025 (June 2000) there is no way they could be of the 0.25 μm process technology as indicated by the die marking. See attached email from SME Richard Kimura and Song Pyun. Martin Serrano 09/27/16 Analyst Date 8. Materials Analysis Per - JESD213 Paragraph 5.5 Per IDEA-STD- 1010-B Paragraph 11.3 S/N(s): 9 11 19 Location: Lead Lead Lead Composition: Pure Tin (Sn) Over Copper (Cu) Pure Tin (Sn) Over Copper (Cu) Pure Tin (Sn) Over Copper (Cu) Anomaly Yes No Reference Page(s) 24 for XRF and/or EDS Spectrum Comments: A quantity of 3 devices were tested for the composition of their leads. All 3 devices were found to have leads comprised of pure Tin (Sn) over a copper base metal. The devices datasheet does not specify the composition of the leads; however, his finding is rejectable per JESD213 Paragraph 5.5 and MIL-STD-883J Method 2037 Paragraph 4.5, as devices with a tin-lead finish are required to have at least 3% lead (Pb) content. The program should take measures to correct this condition as pure tin lead can form tin whiskers. Christopher A Wills 09/21/16 Analyst Date
PAGE 8 OF 25 Figure 1. As received image of packaging containing devices. Figure 2. As received image of label on ESD packaging containing devices. Figure 3. As received image of devices inside ESD packaging. Three different bags (large bag & 2 small bags) can be seen, all containing devices.
Figure 4. PAGE 9 OF 25 As received image of the large bag and the reel that was inside containing the devices. Figure 5. Image of the contents of one of the small bags. Figure 6. Image of the contents of one of the small bags to show As-Received condition.
Figure 7. PAGE 10 OF 25 Label on reel containing devices. Figure 8. Label on reel containing devices. Figure 9. Label on ESD bag containing reel.
Figure 10. PAGE 11 OF 25 Label on ESD bag containing reel. Figure 11. Label on ESD bag containing reel. Figure 12. Typical as received image of top of devices. Notice the indentations on the top surface appear to be filled in with material.
Figure 13. PAGE 12 OF 25 Typical as received image of the side of the devices. Figure 14. Typical as received image of bottom of devices. Notice the indentations on the bottom side are smooth and clean rather than rough and filled in like that of the top side. Figure 15. Image of typical grinding marks located on the top surface of the devices (arrows). The Pin One indicator also appears to be filled in with material.
Figure 16. PAGE 13 OF 25 Image of typical grinding marks found on the top surface of devices. The grinding marks can be seen running vertically along the bottom edge of the device in the photo. Figure 17. Image of typical grinding marks found on devices. The grinding marks can be seen on the top surface along the right edge of the device (arrows). Figure 18. Image of grinding mark on the top surface of a device (arrows). The grinding mark can be seen going through part of the device marking.
Figure 19. PAGE 14 OF 25 Typical as received image of ends of the leads. The ends of the leads appear to have been replated. Figure 20. Typical Real-Time X-Ray image of top of devices with Type A lead frame. Type A lead frames appears to have large dice. Figure 21. Typical Real-Time X-Ray image of side of devices with Type A lead frame.
Figure 22. PAGE 15 OF 25 Typical Real-Time X-Ray image of top of devices with Type B lead frame. Type B devices appear to have smaller sized dice. Their dice are smaller than that of Type A and Type C. Figure 23. Typical Real-Time X-Ray image of side of devices with Type B lead frame. Figure 24. Typical Real-Time X-Ray image of top of devices with Type C lead frame. Type C lead frames appear to have large sized dice, similar to the die size of Type A devices.
Figure 25. PAGE 16 OF 25 Typical Real-Time X-Ray image of side of devices with Type C lead frame. Figure 26. SEM image of Sample 9 showing the presence of blacktopping on the top surface of the device. The top (blue arrow) and side (yellow arrow) surfaces of the device can visually be seen to be different from one another. All surfaces of the device should be identical to one another. Figure 27. SEM of Sample 9 showing the Pin One indicator filled in with blacktopping material. This area was cross-sectioned for further analysis.
Figure 28. PAGE 17 OF 25 Overall image of cross-sectioned portion of Sample 9. The divot on the top surface of the device is the device s Pin One indicator. Figure 29. Image of Pin One indicator of crosssectioned portion of Sample 9. In the image a thin layer of blacktopping can be seen along the top surface of the device. Figure 30. Blacktopping Image of Pin One indicator of crosssectioned portion of Sample 9. A thin layer of blacktopping can be seen on the top surface.
Figure 31. PAGE 18 OF 25 Image of Sample 11 post Resistance To Solvents (RTS) testing using Solution A. The markings all remained legible, thus no anomalies were found. The scrape at the top of the device (red arrow) is from the scrape test completed prior to RTS. The 11 located on the left side of the device (yellow arrow) was placed there for serialization during electrical testing. Figure 32. Image of Sample 9 post RTS testing using Acetone. Acetone was applied to the right side of the yellow dotted line. The Acetone removed some of the blacktopping material which can be seen on the lower right corner of the device (red arrow). The 9 located on the left side of the device (yellow arrow) was placed there for serialization during electrical testing. A portion of the device was removed for cross-sectional analysis. Figure 33. Image of Sample 19 post RTS using NMP. RTS was performed on the left side of the yellow dotted line. The NMP removed some of the blacktopping material and marking on the device s surface (red arrow). The Pin One indicator can also be seen to have been cleaned of blacktopping and now has a shiny and smooth appearance (yellow arrow). The line at the top of the device is from the scrape test which was performed prior to RTS (green arrow).
PAGE 19 OF 25 Figure 34. High-mag image of Sample 19 post RTS with NMP. RTS was performed on the left side of the yellow dotted line. The right side of the yellow dotted line shows the original condition prior to RTS. Two distinct surfaces can be seen in the image. The left surface has a smooth dull appearance to it, while the right side appears granular, rough, and shiny. Figure 35. Left: Image of typical Pin One indicator prior to RTS testing. The indicator appears to be filled in with material and have a dull, rough, and granular look. The edges appear to blend in with the top surface of the device. Right: Image of Pin One indicator of Sample 19 post RTS with NMP. The indicator now has a shiny and smooth look. Thus indicating material was removed. Notice how the edges of the indicator are now distinct and pronounced. Figure 36. Image of Sample 11 post RTS using DynaSolve 750. RTS was performed on the left side of the yellow dotted line. Some of the solvent crept to the right side of the device The DynaSolve 750 remove most of the blacktopping material and marking on the top surface of the device.
Figure 37. PAGE 20 OF 25 Left: Image of typical Pin One indicator prior to RTS testing. The indicator appears to be filled in with material and have a dull, rough, and granular look. The edges appear to blend in with the top surface of the device. Right: Image of Pin One indicator of Sample 11 post RTS with DynaSolve 750. The indicator now has a shiny and smooth look. Thus indicating material was removed. Notice how the edges of the indicator are now distinct and pronounced. Figure 38. SEM image of cross-sectioned sample showing a layer of blacktopping on the top surface of the device (arrows). Figure 39. Typical image of devices leads prior to solderability testing. No anomalies.
Figure 40. PAGE 21 OF 25 Typical image of devices leads post solderability testing. The solder completely wetted to all leads of all devices tested. No anomalies found. Figure 41. Typical overall image of die for devices with lead frame of Type A. Devices with Type A lead frame had large dice. Figure 42. Typical markings found on devices with Type A.
Figure 43. PAGE 22 OF 25 Typical overall image of die for devices with lead frame of Type C. Devices with Type B lead frame had large dice. Figure 44. Typical markings on devices with Type C lead frame.
PAGE 23 OF 25 Caliper Asset Number: V0714312 Date Calibrated: 12/04/15 Next Calibration Date: 12/05/16
PAGE 24 OF 25 Note: All elements in this report are not real and are artifacts of the XRF scan except for the following elements: Tin (Sn), Copper (Cu). The leads appear to be pure tin over a copper base metal.
PAGE 25 OF 25
Paul Peterson From: richel [richel@freeicforum.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 7:36 PM To: Paul Peterson Cc: Rich Nadeau Subject: Re:Electronic Components Inc PO 7229 Hi Paul, According to our record, we received 5 pos in total for the same parts from 2009 to 2011. Your po was the first po we got. The batch we shipped to you were from one supplier while the other 4 batches were from a different supplier, qty varied from 20 to 100. The reason we changed supplier was the previous purchaser left the company. The new purchaser bought the parts from new supplier. We havenot received any complaints so far regarding the other 4 pos( from 2 different customers). If you need any other information pls let me know. Richel -