There had been always unified API: PKCS#11.
Well, at Microsoft environment there was CryptoAPI Provider.
The good about the CryptoAPI is that it allowed enough flexibility so
that, for example, you could have created a generic CryptoAPI provider
on-top of PKCS#11.

In the MiniDriver, Microsoft advanced too far. It created a dependency
between Microsoft specific data and on-card implementation. It also
created a dependency between configuration and card content.

So now, instead of providing a single API (PKCS#11) and a single
bridge for Microsoft environment (CryptoAPI Provider->PKCS#11) you
need to work much harder.

Alon.

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Anders Rundgren
<anders.rundg...@telia.com> wrote:
>
> Writing card drivers is quite difficult. That's why Microsoft introduced the 
> "MiniDriver".
>
> The driver model has been very successful for printers since printers have 
> widely different characteristics. Cryptographic operations OTOH leave very 
> little (if any) room for variations.
>
> Although cards may differ in features, using unified high-level APIs like the 
> MiniDriver this will either be hard to access or more likely: Never be 
> utilized.
>
> Open question: Since the MiniDriver gives a unified card API, wouldn't it be 
> easier defining a FIXED API/DRIVER and rather let the cards adapt to that? 
> Certifying a gazillion third-party drivers including multiple card versions 
> doesn't appear to be a particularly swift project.
>
> With a fully unified card API you can target all cards with a fairly simple 
> test-suite and delegate the certification to the card vendors. This should 
> dramatically improve system reliability which always has been a weak point, 
> particularly for consumer computers.
>
> Anders
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensc-devel mailing list
> opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
> http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel

Reply via email to