Hmmm. forgot to respond to this part in my earlier mail.
--On Monday, November 13, 2006 11:56:13 PM +0100 Andreas Jellinghaus
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so if t=1 shouldn't be a problem and cryptoflex does both
t=0 and t=1 I think
I do not think cryptoflex supports T=1. certainly, its ATR does not suggest
that:
$ ATR_analysis 3B 95 18 40 FF 62 01 02 01 04
ATR: 3B 95 18 40 FF 62 01 02 01 04
+ TS = 3B --> Direct Convention
+ T0 = 95, Y(1): 1001, K: 5 (historical bytes)
TA(1) = 18 --> Fi=372, Di=12, 31.000 cycles/ETU
TD(1) = 40 --> Y(i+1) = 0100, Protocol T = 0
-----
TC(2) = FF --> Work waiting time: 960 x 255 x (Fi/F)
+ Historical bytes: 62 01 02 01 04
Category indicator byte: 62 (proprietary format)
Possibly identified card (using /usr/share/pcsc/smartcard_list.txt):
3B 95 18 40 FF 62 01 02 01 04
Schlumberger Cryptoflex 32K e-gate
Where did you get the idea that it does? (I suppose someone could try
sending the FF 01 FE pts sequence to one and see what happens, but I can't
do that test right now)
does cryptoflex also support T=2?
only T=0 and T=1 have been standardized. No T=2 at this time.
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
