This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Tomcsanyi, Domonkos domi at tomcsanyi.netHi Mychaela, Just a side note from me, addressing your wish to not use Python for SIM operations. I have been using srsLTE for about 5 years now, and about 3 years ago physical USIM support was added to it. Naturally it is a very thin layer, pretty much only supporting requesting 3G AUTH vectors from the card, however it is written in C or C++ (I can’t remember right now which). Maybe it is useful for you :). Cheers, Domi > 04.02.2021 dátummal, 13:42 időpontban Mychaela Falconia <mychaela.falconia at gmail.com> írta: > > Hi Harald, > >> In theory, you should be able to remove the respective applications from >> most java based cards with the right credentials > > For the "right credentials" part, I have a 10-pack of sysmoISIM-SJA2 > cards which I bought with ADM keys included. The key material email > from your webshop gives ADM1 and KI[CDK][123] for each card - are > these the right credentials? > >> via SCP02. Did you try? > > I am afraid the learning curve will probably be too steep for me to > climb at this moment - but I am making a mental note to read up on > SCP02, whatever it is, when and if I get the mental space for it. > >> sysmocom can certainly also provide such cards, should you have a >> related requirement. > > What would be the MOQ and minimum order total cost for the following?: > > * Application customization: either classic GSM only or classic GSM > plus USIM (TBD), but no ISIM; > > * 1FF+2FF-only cut, with the 2FF piece being fully solid w/o 3FF or > 4FF cuts; > > * Custom printing. > >> It requires creating a card profile without >> ADF.USIM + ADF.ISIM, which certainly can be done. > > Just how much control do you have over your cards? Your docs give the > impression that your vendor/supplier more or less forced you into a > new CardOS platform by declaring EOL on the one you had for SJS1, and > the comments in your Python code for programming Ki/OPc/etc make it > sound like these aspects were something you had to reverse-eng from > what your vendor gave you, rather than something you actually designed > yourselves. I mean, if your own team had actually designed the custom > non-standard files for storing keys and algorithm selections, surely > you would not have come up with the awkward design where you have to > repeatedly store into each of SIM, USIM and ISIM, without making it > clear at all whether or not these files are all linked or separate... > > If you were to make a version without ADF.ISIM or without both > ADF.ISIM and ADF.USIM, what would the architecture look like for > storing Ki (or K/OPc) and algorithm selections? > > I am also concerned about the following stanza in sysmo_isim_sja2.py: > > sysmo_isimsja2_algorithms = ( > (SYSMO_ISIMSJA2_ALGO_COMP12V1, 'COMP128v1'), > (SYSMO_ISIMSJA2_ALGO_COMP12V2, 'COMP128v2'), > (SYSMO_ISIMSJA2_ALGO_COMP12V3, 'XOR-2G'), > (SYSMO_ISIMSJA2_ALGO_MILENAGE, 'MILENAGE'), > (SYSMO_ISIMSJA2_ALGO_SHA1AKA , 'SHA1-AKA'), > (SYSMO_ISIMSJA2_ALGO_XOR, 'XOR'), > ) > > Why is SYSMO_ISIMSJA2_ALGO_COMP12V3 mapped to 'XOR-2G' and not > 'COMP128v3'? Does sysmoISIM-SJA2 (and presumably any custom config > based on your current SJA2 CardOS) actually support COMP128v3 or not? > If it doesn't, one has to do Milenage even for a 2G-only network, > which is certainly an extra cognitive burden... > >> One clear disadvantage of using SIM without USIM functionality even on a >> 2G radio network is that you can never use mutual authentication between >> network and phone (which is a pure protocol related aspect, so it could >> be implemented in any phone/baseband whose software can be modified - >> including FreeCalypso. > > Yes, I have thought about implementing USIM and 3G-style AKA support > in FreeCalypso. But as my life circumstances stand currently, I don't > know if I will live long enough to bring FC to a point where it would > be a practically usable phone handset (whether on new or pre-existing > Calypso hw), one that can actually replace historical phones with > solid blob firmwares for everyday use - and in the absence of handset > functionality which I could use with an end user hat on, I see no > point in expending major effort to add new big functionality to what > is essentially a toy (current AT-command-controlled FC modem). > > M~