ISO 14443-3 PDF

Part 3 [ISO/IEC (E)] defines the initialization and anticollision protocols Note that ISO/IEC is a Contacted Integrated Circuit Card standard. INTERNATIONAL. STANDARD. ISO/IEC. Second edition. Identification ISO’s member body in the country of the requester. ISO copyright . The ISO/IEC describes how to select (“activate”) a single card. This card activation procedure is generally independent of the number.

Author: Kazrale Nahn
Country: Suriname
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 16 July 2011
Pages: 93
PDF File Size: 15.90 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.42 Mb
ISBN: 959-2-42796-477-6
Downloads: 84130
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Fegrel

Post as a guest Name. Look at hash functions, for example. I’ve been recently rewriting ISO anti-collision loop and found out that it is actually not correctly defined in the standard.

Sign up using Facebook. There are usually some patterns iao one vendor has some prefix and then prefix of card type – So it looks to me more like somebody had bad day than calculated trough decision.

rfid – Why are there types A and B in ISO ? – Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange

I know it is very low probability 1: Also generation of UIDs is usually not made in Crypographically friendly way e. This problem existed in the version of the standard and was corrected in Amendment 1 in by adding the clause: Practical standards do practical implications. Post Your Answer Discard By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of serviceprivacy policy and cookie policyand that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

ISO anti-collision protocol is not correct Ask Question. This answer talks about competing technologies brought forward by two different 1443-3 The probability that noise occurs that disrupts any communication is probably much higher!

  KAREN HAMAKER ZONDAG PDF

ISO/IEC 14443

The Innovatron company had working microprocessor cards, so their technology was integrated as type B in the standard. But nevertheless it is not correct and the general director of the company I am working for will definitely come to look at what we are doing with two such cards in his wallet.

Obviously, no hash is free of collisions, as long as the hash is shorter than the hashed data — but the probability of something randomly changing the hashed data to false data with the same hash is so small, it can be neglected in practice. By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of serviceprivacy policy and cookie policyand that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies. Sign up using Email and Password. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Cookie PolicyPrivacy Policyand our Terms of Service.

At the time, type A couldn’t power up a microprocessor continuously.

Post as a guest Name. While I believe that I read current version, I haven’t checked that. Cryptography depends on an attacker not, by sheer luck, finding the 14443–3 key on the first try; mechanical engineering is all “oh all these iron atoms are aranged in a neat metal grid, so the probability of a crystal fracture going through the whole steel beam supporting this skyscraper is really really small”.

Could you re-phrase this sentence: Can I find 144433-3 details somewhere? So somebody will come and will start to poke into readers to see if it not breaks something.

  CHICKENHAWK MASON PDF

I would expect though I did not check that this is also the case for the version of the standard.

Email Required, but never shown. Sign up using Email and Password. I’d like to understand why the ISO standard describes two types of interfaces, type A and type B.

nfc – ISO anti-collision protocol is not correct – Stack Overflow

Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Stack Overflow works best with JavaScript enabled.

This problem existed in the version of the standard and was corrected in Amendment 1 in by adding the clause:. Am I right or did I miss something? Email Required, but never 144443-3. I found a nice answer to my question here: This separation is not relevant anymore since you can have type A or type B memory or microprocessor cards, and we ended 144433 with two competing technologies in the same standard.

I don’t iiso that you can easily fabricate this one – and it is not defined what to do in that case. Post Your Answer Discard By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of serviceprivacy policy and cookie policyand that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.