Scientists at the University of Copenhagen have developed a new marking system using patterns of sand, which they claim could potentially put an end to counterfeit goods.
In 2013, 1,500 high-fashion counterfeit leather handbags with a potential street value of $14m were seized in Los Angeles (Credit: Jaime Ruiz/US Customs and Border Protection)
The optical authentication system uses sand doped with three rare earth lanthanides, each of which glows under a different wavelength of light. Separate buckets of sand are doped with europium, terbium and dysprosium, with the three buckets then mixed together in a single vessel.
A piece of ‘tape’ is dipped in the vessel to create a unique pattern with thousands of grains of sand, but which measures just a few millimetres wide. This fingerprint can then be embedded in leather or glass or milled into metal.
When a manufacturer attaches the marking to an item, the imprint is photographed at different wavelengths. The resulting patterns of illuminated europium, terbium and dysprosium are then combined in a single image which is digitally stored in the manufacturer’s database. Using a proprietary reader and software, the digital key can then be used to authenticate the physical key. According to the researchers, the encoding capacity of the system is 6 × 10104, making it virtually impossible to successfully counterfeit. The work is described in Science Advances.
“The system, which deploys three rare earths among other things, is based on randomness, which makes it unable to be hacked or tampered with,” said Thomas Just Sørensen of the University of Copenhagen’s Department of Chemistry.
“The probability of two products having the same ‘fingerprints’ – the same digital key – is so minuscule, that in practice, it can only be described as non-existent. It corresponds to a one out of an enormous number composed of a 6 followed by 104 zeros.”
According to the researchers, the system will be relatively low-cost, with each marking costing around one Danish krone (£0.12). The concept has already been patented, and the team is currently fine-tuning the scanning technology. It’s expected that the system will be commercially available within the next year.
When I see the word “un-hackable” why do I immediately think of the word Titanic?
Hi. Please explain how this applies to the fashion industry. Are final retailers expected to scan every item, have that compared to the manufacturer data, then smile to the customer when it matches? Can’t see that happening and the whole chain of that process is wide open for hacking. It only helps if law enforcement picks them up, and even then if resources allow, which is the real problem today. Is that wrong?
£0.12 is not low-cost in the authentications world. In fact, that would be considered high-cost, more than RFID, NFC, Holograms, and virtually any type of covert or even Forensic security marking.
Sorry to say but this has the feel of a press release from a private enterprise or research establishment dressed up as journalism. There is no independent query documented, no possible down side or evidence of wider research. Very many of the newsletter links are articles like this, or blatant adverts. Adverts are fine, we all need wider industrial links, just make your articles worthy researched, forensic, and less like an advertiser press release please. This technology is very clever, just need an interview with the developer.
I’m fairly certain high-end leather goods are not interested in having sand added to their finish. What happens when the sand is worn away? Instant fake, not tested? This type of pattern could be achieved with many other technologies, but hasn’t because as other posters have pointed out, it’s not feasible to maintain and then interpret the codes. 10^104 is impressive, but what if only one grain of sand is different, or missing? Sounds like a funding grab to me, more vaporware.
It only helps if law enforcement picks them up, and even then if resources allow, which is the real problem today. Actually fake goods (ie mis-named) is usually a civil matter. The Police are not really interested, because they believe its up to the owners of ‘trade-marks’ and registered designs to ‘police’ their own patches. Just as patent infringement is a matter for those whose intellectual property has been stolen. During my career I have had dozens of cases involving these areas: and the boys in blue have never been involved.