-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
CommandAPDU reuse data object to avoid PIN copy #80
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
| if (size() > MAX_DATA_SIZE) { | ||
| throw std::invalid_argument("Command chaining and extended lenght not supported"); | ||
| } | ||
| insert(begin(), {cls, ins, p1, p2, static_cast<byte_type>(size())}); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't it so that when using the T=0 protocol, the Le field should be omitted? Shouldn't you handle protocol differences here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We have many cases where we send with T=0 Le field and do not have any issues reported:
https://github.com/web-eid/libelectronic-id/blob/main/src/electronic-ids/pcsc/EIDIDEMIA.cpp#L146-L152
https://github.com/web-eid/libelectronic-id/blob/main/src/electronic-ids/pcsc/FinEID.cpp#L161-L162
If this is issue we should handle this in transfer()
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would prefer that we test T=0 properly after merging.
82eacfc to
6da3dc3
Compare
d6ae2af to
fa0cc2c
Compare
WE2-1007 Signed-off-by: Raul Metsma <[email protected]>
WE2-1007 Signed-off-by: Raul Metsma <[email protected]>
WE2-1007 Signed-off-by: Mart Somermaa <[email protected]>
WE2-1007
Signed-off-by: Raul Metsma [email protected]