Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
The problem with 63Cx return codes was solved in SCAPI-3.0.0 with checking for
6310.
Do you still see the need for verification of the previous command for
INS=0xF2? I have not seen a 6310 response in other cases.
Original comment by Daniel.A...@gi-de.com
on 5 Jul 2013 at 2:27
Daniel,
Thank you for answer.
I do think that verifying both for INS==0xf2 *and* CLA bit 8 set
(proprietary class) is needed.
ISO/IEC 7816-4 defines 63XX as "State of non-volatile memory has changed
(further qualification in SW2)".
ISO/IEC 7816-4 also defines some interindustry SW2 (IRRC, for the moment
6300, 63Cx, 6382).
However, this doesn't mean that it doesn't in the future or that any
application can't use non-defined ones, as GP does with 6310.
This is still suboptimal, of course, as another card application could
potentially use a proprietary F2 command and return a 6310 with a
different meaning. But chances of meeting this case are greatly reduced
compared to only checking for 6310.
BTW: Just curious, why isn't the second GET STATUS issued as application
level? Why should seek implement concepts for specific applications?
This case is very different than the ISO/IEC 7816-3 61xx/GET RESPONSE case.
Original comment by jmo...@gmail.com
on 7 Jul 2013 at 10:50
Fixed in SCAPI 3.2.1
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jmo...@gmail.com
on 1 Jul 2013 at 6:43