> What if they had bricked life support equipment, or part of an airliner
While I agree that was a bad strategy, even more so from a PR standpoint, I'd like to believe critical industries like medical electronics or avionics would do a better job not only validating components (even at the individual level) but also subsequent software updates. Electronics are less a wear part than mechanical parts where counterfeits have an easier time sneaking in (the occasional counterfeit screw let's say).
Any scenario involving any kind of failure looks more dire when you attach it to "life support", "airplane", or "nuclear facility".
That's a bad failure for sure but it's a very different kind. Checking for counterfeit parts is a supply chain issue, you know what you're looking for (the original part is very well described) and you check for specific markers.
Design flaws are different. You can fail using an original part because you picked the wrong one for the job. Validating something for (long term) use is far trickier than checking an already validated part for a set of markers. The higher the stakes, the better the checks should be. An airplane should get better validation than a portable blood pressure monitor.
Imagine something more relatable: picking the perfect person for the job is far harder than verifying that the person you chose is the one coming into the office each day.
While I agree that was a bad strategy, even more so from a PR standpoint, I'd like to believe critical industries like medical electronics or avionics would do a better job not only validating components (even at the individual level) but also subsequent software updates. Electronics are less a wear part than mechanical parts where counterfeits have an easier time sneaking in (the occasional counterfeit screw let's say).
Any scenario involving any kind of failure looks more dire when you attach it to "life support", "airplane", or "nuclear facility".