David Corcoran wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Not to sound defensive, but I think (by bias) that this client side
> architecture is good for writing fast plug-ins. If the plugin level is at
> the PKCS-11 layer which it might be as well there is too much overhead for
> just a smartcard and each card driver shares much of the same certificate
> managing code with other drivers.
>

I wasn't suggesting you should use PKCS#11 as the plugin level. Indeed
it would be quite an overhead and probably wouldn't be as flexible in
any case. Hmm that makes me curious as to how you'll be handling
PKCS#11...

My reference to PKCS#11 was to George Staikos as to how KDE 3.0 could
handle smart cards or smart card like devices. If the KDE stuff can talk
PKCS#11 then it could talk to gpkcs-11 (and Musclecard as a result) and
a whole load of other things besides.

Steve.

-- 
Dr Stephen N. Henson.   http://www.drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk/
Personal Email: shensondrh-consultancy.demon.co.uk 
Senior crypto engineer, Gemplus: http://www.gemplus.com/
Core developer of the   OpenSSL project: http://www.openssl.org/
Business Email: drhcelocom.com PGP key: via homepage.
***************************************************************
Unix Smart Card Developers - M.U.S.C.L.E.
(Movement for the Use of Smart Cards in a Linux Environment)
http://www.linuxnet.com/
To unsubscribe send an email to majordomolinuxnet.com with
unsubscribe sclinux
***************************************************************

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]