On 2011-08-16 17:33, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>
>
> On 8/14/2011 10:40 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>> On 2011-08-14 08:59, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>>> There had been always unified API: PKCS#11.
>>> Well, at Microsoft environment there was CryptoAPI Provider.
>>> The good about the CryptoAPI is that i
On 8/14/2011 10:40 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> On 2011-08-14 08:59, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>> 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, yo
On Aug 16, 2011, at 6:16 , Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>> 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, parti
On 8/13/2011 11:20 PM, Anders Rundgren 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 ver
On 2011-08-14 08:59, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> 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
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 adva
