Printed vs. holographic security

Are holograms more secure than printed codes?

Printed does not mean insecure. Holographic does not mean uncopyable. Whoever puts all printed security features in one basket is comparing manufacturing processes, not security processes.

The argument you may have heard

"A good printer beats a phone camera."

Some arguments against printed security reduce authentication to a race between printers and smartphone cameras: if a printer can reproduce the image, the copy passes.

That skips the decisive question: what must a counterfeit reproduce to pass authentication? A visible effect? An individual security structure? A valid identity linked to one specific product?

That is where the comparison should begin.

Attack 1 · Copy detection patterns

Printed at the limit.
Copied at the limit.

A copy detection pattern is a fine noise field printed into or next to a code at the printer's maximum resolution. The scan checks whether detail was lost – the assumption being that a copy always blurs. Researchers at the University of Geneva tested that assumption with machine learning:

How a copy detection pattern is clonedDocumented in research, 2019–2024
1Collect genuine printed codes and scan them at high resolution.
2Train a machine-learning model to recover the digital pattern from the print.
3Reprint the recovered pattern on an industrial press – the same class of machine as the original.
✓ Accepted
4Check it with standard detection metrics.
✗ Clone not reliably detected

Standard detection metrics "cannot reliably distinguish the original CDP from their fakes."1 On industrial HP Indigo presses the fakes were "even less distinguishable both perceptually and statistically".2

A successful attack exposes a verification method. It does not discredit every printed security technology.

Research has demonstrated machine-learning attacks against specific copy detection patterns and detection methods – and better detection methods in response.2 The relevant question is always which features were reconstructed, which checks were defeated, and under what conditions. Applying those results to every printed security feature is a leap the evidence does not support.

Attack 2 · Holograms

The holographic effect
is only the beginning.

An embossed hologram is a manufactured optical structure – made from a metal master, and reproducible with the same techniques: lift the relief, plate it, emboss it again.3 Its appearance alone does not establish that a label is original.

How an embossed hologram is replicatedIllustration of embossed-hologram replication
1Separate a genuine label from its backing – the embossed relief is exposed.
2Electroform the relief in nickel. The result is a metal master of that exact surface.
3Emboss copies from the master – or re-originate the hologram from scratch for the best fakes.
Replica produced
4Does the replica pass authentication? That requires a system-specific test.
Appearance reproduced ≠ authenticity established

Wherever a hologram is checked by eye, appearance is all a counterfeit needs: in one tested batch of seized excise holograms, 870 of 894 were fake.4

What about app-verified holographic labels? A vendor of such labels writes in its own patent about the base features of optical security:

"Such security features may, in the case of complete knowledge, be replicated at least up to such an extent that the replicate stands up to an examination by means of a – comparatively coarsely resolving – camera."US 11,390,107 B2, Summary of the invention5

The patent distinguishes these reproducible base features from randomly selected portions, used to make individual labels harder to replicate – in its words, to "aggravate replication". That distinction matters: the security argument depends on a specific construction and its verification – not on the word "hologram". Which reproductions the complete process actually rejects is the question every buyer should ask.

How well automated hologram checks hold up is an open research question. A 2026 study on hologram verification notes that existing methods' "capacity to detect real, dynamic fraud cases (e.g. handcrafted hologram) has not been evaluated to date" and that few of them "can generalize to new, unseen attacks".6

What it means for a brand: a foil label on every unit, applied separately from your artwork, an app for whoever checks – and a security claim that rests on how that specific system was tested.

The reprint test · Crypto-Optical Technology

Reproduce the appearance.
Then test the authenticity.

Crypto-Optical Technology combines individually configured bit-block structures, cryptographic identity checks and scan monitoring. Reproducing a visible code is only one part of the challenge: the security structure must pass verification, the identity must match its assigned product, and suspicious reuse must be detected.

Crypto-Optical Technology
An industrial reprint of a Crypto-Optical code – and what the scan saysTest it yourself · Sample Kit
authentic.network security sticker
1Take a genuine code and scan it at high resolution. The glitter film is an additional visual feature. The security sits in the green frame.
authentic.network security sticker
2Rebuild the code and the green frame – visually matching.
authentic.network security sticker
3Reprint it on an industrial press, at high resolution.
authentic.network security sticker
✗ Not original
4Scan it with any phone camera, no app. The reproduced security structure fails verification.
✓ Copy rejected

The industrial reprint in our Sample Kit reproduces the appearance – but fails verification: the scan says Not original. Scan the original and the reprint yourself.

✗Copy detection pattern

ML clone – standard metrics could not reliably tell it apart.

?Hologram label

Appearance reproducible – authenticity depends on the specific system.

✓Crypto-Optical Technology

Industrial reprint – fails verification. Test it with the Sample Kit.

Why it holds · Crypto-Optical Technology

A printer's resolution
answers none of these questions.

Crypto-Optical Technology does not rest on how sharp a print is, or how a surface glitters. Three layers of protection:

Crypto-Optical Technology
authentic.network security sticker
Layer 1 · StructureDoes the security structure pass?

Each code carries individually configured bit-block manipulations. The scan evaluates that structure – not just a serial number.

Layer 2 · IdentityDoes the identity match its product?

The code's identity is tied to its product data, with additional cryptographic checks in the verification.

Layer 3 · BehaviourIs the use consistent?

Every scan is recorded with time and place. Unusual repeated use of the same identity is flagged for investigation.

The glitter film on our sticker is an additional visual feature – the verification does not depend on it. Any phone camera, no app. Printed in standard CMYK by authentic.network through a qualified industrial printing partner – into your label or as a ready-to-apply sticker.

Compare the evidence

Six questions to ask
any vendor – including us.

  1. Which reproductions and attack methods were tested?A photocopy is not an attack. An industrial reprint, a machine-learning clone and a plated copy are.
  2. Who ran the test – the vendor, or someone independent?
  3. Is an individual security feature verified, or only a valid identifier?
  4. How often were counterfeits accepted – and originals rejected?
  5. Does everyone who checks need the vendor's app?Customers, retailers, workshops, customs.
  6. What does every unit need extra – and how are reuse and product mismatches handled?
150+countries where products with the code are sold
PatentedCrypto-Optical Technology
ISO 27001certified hosting
Made in Germanydeveloped and based in Chemnitz

Trusted by LIQUI MOLY, BOSCH, STIHL and Chillington – and by public institutions such as AHK, the German Federal Government and the Government of Kenya.

One code

More than proof. On the same code.

Brand protection

A copy fails the check, for anyone with a phone.

Grey-market control

Each serial knows the market it was meant for.

Warranty

One warranty per serial number. Copies never reach the desk.

Digital Product Passport

The EU passport on the code that already protects the product.

Questions

About the technology.

What is Crypto-Optical Technology?

Crypto-Optical Technology is authentic.network's patented authentication technology. It adds a security layer of deliberately manipulated bit blocks, arranged according to a cryptographic key, around a printed code on the product. The code stays readable like any other, but photographing, scanning or reprinting destroys the manipulations, so a reproduction fails verification.

What is a bit block?

A bit block is a small group of print dots that have been deliberately manipulated to carry digital information. Together, the bit blocks in a code form a pattern generated from a cryptographic key. A phone camera reads them back; photographing, scanning or reprinting destroys them, so a copy fails the check.

Can the code be copied?

The visible QR code can be reprinted, but the security pattern does not survive the copy: photographing, scanning or reprinting destroys the manipulated bit blocks. What comes out looks like the code, but it is not a copy of it - and it fails verification.

Can a copy-evident code be reproduced with a high-resolution printer?

No – and not because of print resolution. Codes that rely on a copy becoming blurry (copy detection patterns) are tied to what a phone camera can resolve, and research from the University of Geneva (2021) has shown they can be cloned with industrial printers. Crypto-Optical Technology works differently: bit-block manipulation places the security in the structure of the code itself. A reprint reproduces the picture, not the structure – so it fails the scan, whatever printer made it. The Sample Kit contains exactly that: one original and one industrially printed, high-resolution reprint. Scan both.

How is this different from a standard QR code?

A standard QR code identifies a product: it tells you what the item claims to be. It can be copied perfectly, so a counterfeit carrying the same code scans identically. Crypto-Optical Technology authenticates: it confirms that the item in front of you is the original that claim belongs to.

Do we need special inks, printers or hardware?

No. authentic.network produces the mark through a qualified industrial printing partner. You get it either as a sticker ready to apply, or integrated into your label artwork and produced together with the label. No new machines and no special inks are needed in either case.

Does verification work without an internet connection?

Yes. The answer is derived from the mark itself rather than looked up on a server, so with the authentic app verification also works offline. That matters at border checks, in warehouses and in regions with unreliable coverage.

Do our existing scanners and systems still work?

Yes. The mark stays a readable standard code, so anything that reads codes today keeps reading it. The crypto-optical layer is added around the code rather than replacing it, which is why the technology adds trust to the standards you already use instead of forcing a migration.

What data does authentic.network record?

Verification scans: when and where a mark was checked and whether it passed. The system does not require you to hand over full supply-chain event data to work.

See it yourself

Don't judge security by its surface.
Test what passes.

One original. One industrial reprint. Compare them. Scan them. See the difference between looking authentic and passing authentication.

Sample Kit
authentic.network security sticker
✓ Original
AOriginal
authentic.network security sticker
✗ Not original
BIndustrial reprint
Request your Sample KitTalk to an expert

The kit demonstrates this original-and-reprint pair. For your product, the next step is to assess packaging, production conditions and verification requirements.

  1. 1 · Chaban, Taran, Tutt, Holotyak, Bonev, Voloshynovskiy (University of Geneva): Machine learning attack on copy detection patterns: are 1×1 patterns cloneable?, 2021. Earlier: Taran, Bonev, Voloshynovskiy, Clonability of anti-counterfeiting printable graphical codes, 2019.
  2. 2 · Chaban, Pulfer, Voloshynovskiy (University of Geneva): Assessing the viability of synthetic physical copy detection patterns on different imaging systems, 2024 – fakes reprinted on HP Indigo 5500/7600.
  3. 3 · J. Wallace, Laser Focus World: Foiling counterfeiters – mechanical copying, contact copying, two-step copying and re-origination of embossed holograms.
  4. 4 · The Tribune, 18 June 2021: 870 liquor holograms found fake – 894 excise holograms tested by the Security Printing Press, Hyderabad.
  5. 5 · US 11,390,107 B2, Object marking for optical authentication and method for producing same, published 19 July 2022, Summary of the invention.
  6. 6 · Pouliquen, Chiron, Chazalon, Géraud, Awal: Verification of Dynamic Holographic Behavior in Identity Documents, 2026 – identity-document holograms; not a test of any specific product.
  7. Comparisons describe verification principles by category. Individual products may differ. No statement on the cost or quality of third-party products.