Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: > Am Donnerstag 26 November 2009 19:55:02 schrieb Viktor TARASOV: > >> But before, I would like to know if there are any objections for >> the following changes to calls of do_change() and do_unblock() in >> opensc-explorer. >> > > I like the changes. opensc-explorer is only meant as debug tool, > but still each function could be improved so it can implement > the various card commans. > > one question: unblock always works with puk? > is there a way to use so-pin for unblocking too? >
Not for Oberthur card. For Oberthur card it's implemented (not yet commited) at the card level. When the 'Oberthur_Unblock_Style' used, firstly 'PIN pad verify' command is used to verify SOPIN, then 'PIN pad modify' is executed with the real unblock code included into the pinpad APDU data. (And so, this second time, there is no prompt for the unblock(old) code .) It was tested with opensc-explorer (modified); still to be tested using of the 'high-level' tools. > and the text in the examples has "Set PIN" where > I wonder if "unblock pin" wouldn't be better - the > texts are a bit confusing right now. > > or do the "Set PIN" operations require a "verify" command > to be executed first? > Ok, thanks. > anyway, improving pin handling is a good idea! > the users should use pkcs#11 api or "pkcs15-tool", > but it is good if low level commands for testing are > available too. > Agree. IMHO, it will not harm, if 'opensc-explorer' will give the possibility to access the different pinpad modes. > Regards, Andreas > > Kind wishes, Viktor. -- 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
