Comments on: Status words in ISO7816 http://javacard.vetilles.com/2006/09/26/status-words-in-iso7816/ A weblog on Java Card, security, and other things personal Thu, 18 May 2017 07:26:32 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.32 By: Eric Vétillard http://javacard.vetilles.com/2006/09/26/status-words-in-iso7816/#comment-303 Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:02:46 +0000 http://javacard.vetilles.com/2006/09/26/status-words-in-iso7816/#comment-303 Multos did things right in defining the content management and the application framework together, because it more or less guarantees their efficiency.

The ‘6999’ thing is really one of the most stupid decisions in the Java Card spec, and it has led to numerous headaches, and I hope that we are better now.

About your last sentence, I just love it, but I am not quite sure how to achieve such a synchronization. The main issue is that all these work groups work at the same time, and that when they synchronize, it is often too late. But we’re trying.

]]> By: lexdabear http://javacard.vetilles.com/2006/09/26/status-words-in-iso7816/#comment-290 Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:40:25 +0000 http://javacard.vetilles.com/2006/09/26/status-words-in-iso7816/#comment-290 First: Great blog about the smart card world.

SW1SW2 = ‘6999’ is one of the incompatibilities between a pure Java Card and a GlobalPlatform card. MultOS gets rid of this problem by combining content management into the SC-OS. Still I think the Java Card / GP approach is the more flexible one. One just has to make sure that the specs are “in sync” with each other: JC, GP, VGP, MC and ISO.

]]>