On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 17:14, Roberto Resoli <res...@libero.it> wrote: >> As for me, there is no sense in SM keys embedded in the middleware. > > I am with you ...
There would be no need for "me too" here, but I'll write it just for the record. > This interpretation seems even more valid looking at "Figure 8 - […] Thanks for this. I knew I could count on someone who'd looked at those documents much deeper and better than I did :) Those excerpts are quite telling. In general, I would venture to say that they promote and support the view that (1) one's typical desktop computer is a "trusted environment"; (2) cryptography is not a magic wand and has to be implemented and evaluated in the actual operating context. (With a tiny bit of sarcasm, I might add that this is true for any solution and crypto algorithm, especially when the design calls for a 0-bit keyspace, i.e. a single possible key. ;) ) > Nice to hear, I hope someone out there is hearing as well ... It would be great to standardise on something sensible like this. In the meantime, I hope that we can integrate CNS support with Viktor's work (I'm still looking at it but I'm very positive about it). Bye, -- Emanuele _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
