Le 09/12/2011 07:55, Hunter William a écrit :
> On 08 December 2011 11:03 Viktor Tarasov wrote:
>
>> Le 07/12/2011 15:24, Hunter William a écrit :
Is it happens for you to have the accessControlRule that protects by
the different 'PIN' objects the IntrenalAuth, Decipher and Sign
oper
Wello William,
Le 07/12/2011 15:24, Hunter William a écrit :
> -Original Message-
> Ok, yes, I see that - so should we allow the accessControlRules parameter
> to override the authId? It seems so...
> I can update the pkcs15-crypt tool. Are there any other places that need
> updating? I ca
On 08 December 2011 11:03 Viktor Tarasov wrote:
> Le 07/12/2011 15:24, Hunter William a écrit :
> >> Is it happens for you to have the accessControlRule that protects by
> >> the different 'PIN' objects the IntrenalAuth, Decipher and Sign
> >> operations of the same key ?
> >> Could we assume, tha
Hi Viktor,
> -Original Message-
> From: Viktor Tarasov [mailto:viktor.tara...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 07 December 2011 13:08
>
> Hello William,
>
> Le 06/12/2011 11:54, Hunter William a écrit :
> > Looking at the specs, the card seems correct - it seems that the
> IAS/ECC specifications do not
Hello William,
Le 06/12/2011 11:54, Hunter William a écrit :
> It seems that in the following commit to the secure-messaging branch -
> "pkcs11: rewrite
> pkcs15_create_tokens() -- use static sub-funcs" - the requirement for a
> private key to have a link
> to a PIN ID got a bit stricter. In pre
Hi Viktor/all,
It seems that in the following commit to the secure-messaging branch - "pkcs11:
rewrite
pkcs15_create_tokens() -- use static sub-funcs" - the requirement for a private
key to have a link
to a PIN ID got a bit stricter. In previous versions, it seems that if an
object wasn't add
