Pierre Ossman wrote:
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:32:01 +0100
Viktor TARASOV <viktor.tara...@opentrust.com> wrote:
As for me, for the cards (rather 'pkcs15 contents') that do not have
SOPIN or the only useful SOPIN function is 'unblock_user_pin' it's
acceptable to use PUK as SOPIN and to use 'sc_pkcs15_unblock_pin' in
C_InitPIN() .
Could you elaborate on what other SO PINs there are out there
According to standard the SO-PIN is not PUK - the role of SO is to
initialize token
and create User PIN .
So, it's natural that our colleagues can oppose the idea to consider
PUK==SOPIN .
(As I've told above, it's not my case. )
There is no "PUK" notion in the standard.
From my point of view, the most 'standard' manner to do User 'PIN unblock'
is with the C_SetPIN() in the unlogged session.
how my patch would cause problems in those cases.
I need to look it more closely.
All the cards I have
experience with only have the PIN and PUK.
There are the cases when at the card level SOPIN != PUK .
Another question if this difference is exported by the driver to the
upper level.
Rgds
Kind wishes,
--
Viktor Tarasov <viktor.tara...@opentrust.com>
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
