alon.barlev at gmail.com
Mon Sep 5 18:27:17 CEST 2005
>>The conclusion of my discussion with people here is that the need of
>>PKCS#11 for accessing various smartcards is not clear. I've tried to
>>highlight the advantages of using standard software API to access
>>external devices, but I've failed.
>Users of crypto tokens tend to fall into two classes, hobbyists/enthusiasts
(who don't mind hacking their
> own glue code, so PKCS #11 isn't too important), and commercial/business
users (who really need
> PKCS #11 but who probably wouldn't use GPG). The result is, as you've
found, something of a lack
> of a market for PKCS #11 combined with GPG.
I agree... But I was still amazed... If you read the PKCS#11 corresponding
you will notice that there is a remote possibility to agree the usage of
PKCS#11 in a way that gpg will be the provider... So that other applications
can use gpg keys... This was really strange. The whole idea is to separate
between application logic (gpg) and device access (Smartcards, HSM)...
More information about the Gnupg-users