Most "anti-counterfeit" approaches address one part of the problem and leave the rest exposed. The comparisons below map each approach to the four-control model.
| Approach | Crypto | Tamper | Lifecycle | Audit | Failure mode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Static QR + page | — | — | — | — | Codes copied; reused indefinitely; no defensible record. |
| Hologram label only | — | Visual | — | — | Imitated visually; no scan-time enforcement; no evidence. |
| Database-only check | Partial | — | — | Partial | Replay attacks; copied codes pass; no peel-and-transfer defence. |
| Crypto QR (no tamper) | ✓ | — | Variable | Variable | Genuine labels peeled and transferred to counterfeit goods. |
| TrusCodes | AES-256 | ✓ | ✓ | SHA-256 chained | All four controls operate together. |
Each note is written for procurement, compliance, and technical reviewers—not for marketing. They include side-by-side tables, decision guidance, and the acceptance criteria you can put into a vendor questionnaire.
Why redirection-only QR fails for authentication. Replay, transfer, and audit gaps.
Visual deterrence vs system-enforced verification. When each is defensible.
What the phrase actually means. Procurement & compliance checklist.
Architecture walkthrough, evidence outputs, and a bounded pilot path.