On Tue, 2007-03-20 at 08:36 +0100, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
> Am Montag, 19. März 2007 23:30 schrieb Nils Larsch:
> > well, which platforms actually have a getpassphrase() function ?
> > Perhaps it's time to replace getpass() with something own
> > (getpass() isn't really nice anyway as it suppre
Changing the size for 0.11.2 may not be a good idea. It might cause
problems with to many existing cards.
Maybe it should be held off until 0.11.3 after each card is
examined for its own limit and a way to get the limit for the
reader from PCSC and OpenCT is also added.
The opensc.conf file can
On 20.03.2007, at 18:31, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
Changing the size for 0.11.2 may not be a good idea. It might cause
problems with to many existing cards.
Maybe it should be held off until 0.11.3 after each card is
examined for its own limit and a way to get the limit for the
reader from PCSC
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
Am Montag, 19. März 2007 23:30 schrieb Nils Larsch:
well, which platforms actually have a getpassphrase() function ?
Perhaps it's time to replace getpass() with something own
(getpass() isn't really nice anyway as it suppresses some signals).
we could use getpass_r()
Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
Am Montag, 19. März 2007 23:30 schrieb Nils Larsch:
well, which platforms actually have a getpassphrase() function ?
linux and solaris have it, hpux doesn't.
Perhaps it's time to replace getpass() with something own
(getpass() isn't really nice anyway as it suppress
--On Tuesday, March 20, 2007 08:23:32 AM +0100 Andreas Jellinghaus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that would break some cards again, i
I suppose it would help if I read code out of the correct sandbox
I think if I had written the piv stuff I would have maintained the
abstraction and done fr
Chaskiel M Grundman wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 20, 2007 08:23:32 AM +0100 Andreas Jellinghaus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
that would break some cards again, i
I suppose it would help if I read code out of the correct sandbox
I think if I had written the piv stuff I would have maintaine
--On Tuesday, March 20, 2007 08:23:32 AM +0100 Andreas Jellinghaus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what about code like this in card-flex.c:
The error did not occur in card specific code. You cannot send a short apdu
with lc == 256 to any card.
sc_update_binary() uses card->max_send_size to cap
Douglas E. Engert wrote:
...
grep serial_number * shows {most|all} the cards set something for
pkcs15->serial_number, even if its "" Is this a PKCS15
requirement to have a serial number?
the card serial number is not optional in pkcs15
Nils
___
Chaskiel M Grundman wrote:
--On Tuesday, March 20, 2007 08:23:32 AM +0100 Andreas Jellinghaus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what about code like this in card-flex.c:
The error did not occur in card specific code. You cannot send a short
apdu with lc == 256 to any card.
Yes I agree with the
Am Dienstag, 20. März 2007 21:06 schrieb Nils Larsch:
> Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> ...
>
> > grep serial_number * shows {most|all} the cards set something for
> > pkcs15->serial_number, even if its "" Is this a PKCS15
> > requirement to have a serial number?
>
> the card serial number is not
On 20/03/07, Douglas E. Engert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe it should be held off until 0.11.3 after each card is
examined for its own limit and a way to get the limit for the
reader from PCSC and OpenCT is also added.
I tried to send an APDU of 255+5=260 bytes to a SCR331 reader and it
wor
12 matches
Mail list logo
