Let me be less oblique, (and not get into trouble, hopefully.)
Lets create 3 security domains on the card: they are instances of one executable load file for the security domain applet.
Lets have one muscle applet, stored in 1 (linked and loaded) executable load file, loaded under control of the card issuer security domain policy.
As Peter T correctly asked:
(a) can we have multiple muscle applet instances in a given security domain - (i.e. one executable load file is shared amongst several muscle instances, per security domain )
Yes, you can. I just have tried it. I loaded two instance of the MuscleCard Applet in the Card (I have a CyberFlex e-gate 32k, maybe IBM also obeys the standard.). This card only has 32k memory, so I have given each instance a nonVolatileDataSpaceLimit of 4000 byte in INSTALL [for install]. But if you want to use the MuscleCard Framework you have to adjust the MCardplugin to support many different (I believe function PL_MSCIdentifyToken in musclecardApplet.c)
(b) can we have one applet instance per security domain (instance) - whose instance<->instance association is indicated at install (for load) time.
Yes. I haven't tried it. But is the trivial case. But you must have the space for each Executable Load File.
Bye, Karsten
The difference between muscle instances in (a) vs (b) is that for (b), each instance has a distinct privilege set, and thus the keys in each instance's muscle keystore have a different set of possible key usages.
I ask the question in terms of JCOP because IBM was very close to the VISA initiative, and should have had a very clear undersatnding of the intended semantics of the GP standard regarding the intended scheme for loading code, and assigning privileges. _______________________________________________
Muscle mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle
_______________________________________________ Muscle mailing list [email protected] http://lists.drizzle.com/mailman/listinfo/muscle
