← Prev in month ← Prev in thread
Next in thread → Next in month →

RE: C_SetPIN with multiple PINs; authenticated CKO_DATA handling

From
Fenwick, Valerie <>
Date
2019-06-05T15:54:51+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: C_SetPIN with multiple PINs; authenticated CKO_DATA handling
Hi Wouter 

 

Just saw this â will work with TC on larger response to your questions, but as for the drafts of version 3.0, they can be found in the Technical Committeeâs document repository:

 

https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/documents.php?wg_abbrev=pkcs11&show_descriptions=yes

 

Find the latest working drafts there, along with changebar documents.

 

Valerie

 

From:  <>
On Behalf Of Wouter Verhelst

Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 6:14 AM

To: 

Subject: [pkcs11-comment] C_SetPIN with multiple PINs; authenticated CKO_DATA handling

 

Hi,

 

PKCS#11 v2.30 introduces a new CKU_CONTEXT_SPECIFIC user, which is useful for tokens that have multiple PIN codes; a user of the PKCS#11 module can do C_SignInit followed by C_Login with user type CKU_CONTEXT_SPECIFIC so as to allow the
 PKCS#11 module to know which PIN code is being requested.

 

This works well for signature operations, but it does not define how a user should select which PIN to change with C_SetPIN. A method of C_Login with CKU_CONTEXT_SPECIFIC followed by a C_SetPIN would seem to be the obvious answer, except
 that this would result in having to send the PIN code to the PKCS#11 module twice; or, in the case of a token with CKF_PROTECTED_AUTHENTICATION_PATH being set, in the user being asked the same (old) PIN code twice. This is not an ideal situation.

 

The CKU_CONTEXT_SPECIFIC method could also be used to authenticate to a token that requires a PIN code in order to be able to access sensitive data through CKO_DATA object searches. However, in order to be able to do that properly, either
 C_FindObjectsInit or C_FindObjects (or, preferably, both) should be able to return CKR_USER_NOT_LOGGED_IN. In version 2.40 of the standard, this is not allowed.

 

I have been looking for a draft version of PKCS#11 v3.0, but have only been able to find the github repository, which contains a whole lot of new identifiers but no actual standard text.

 

Is the PKCS#11 committee aware of these issues? If so, are there any plans to remedy them?

 

Thanks,
← Prev in month ← Prev in thread
Next in thread → Next in month →