NFC操作模式之间进行选择 [英] Choosing between NFC operation modes

问题描述

您可以在不同的模式进行编程NFC。主要任务是发送双向的消息。在NFC有你可以用它来完成这个综合多种操作模式：

You can program NFC in different modes. The mission is to send bi-directional messages. In NFC there are multiple combined operation modes you can use to accomplish this:

• 选项1
  
  
  
  • 手机>读/写器模式
  
  
  • 读卡器>卡仿真模式
  
  
  • 此选项是使用ISO-DEP（ISO / IEC 7816-4）协议
  
  
  
  
  • 手机>对等网络
  
  
  • 读卡器>对点对点
  
  
  • 此选项可以使用多个P2P协议例如SNEP
  
  
  
  
  • 手机>卡仿真
  
  
  • 读卡器>读/写器模式
  
  
  • 此选项是使用ISO-DEP（ISO / IEC 7816-4）协议
  
  

  我在不同方面的两个问题：

  I have two questions in different aspects:

  用法方面

  使用所有三个选项，你有双向沟通，你基本上可以任何你想要的发送。你为什么不使用别人高一个选项？

  With all three options you have bi-directional communication and you can send basically whatever you want. Why wouldn't you use one option above the others?

  安全方面

  安全性漏洞的意义滥用窃听一样，数据销毁，数据修改和人在这方面的中间人攻击。

  Security in the sense of vulnerability for abusing like eavesdropping, data destruction, data modification and man-in-the-middle-attacks.

  我读的选项3 的（HCE），也可用于例如移动支付。这是安全的选择，或者说是的选项1 的也是安全的，当你使用像数据加密额外措施？

  I read option 3 (HCE) is also used for e.g. mobile payment. Is this the safe option, or is option 1 also safe, when you use additional measures like data encryption?

  谢谢！

  推荐答案

  为什么有不同的工作模式？

  后面的NFC最初的想法是结合现有的标准（具体的ISO / IEC 14443接触式智能卡技术和FeliCa / JIS X 6319-4）到可以与现有的转发器/智能卡/标签二者进行通信的系统中，与现有的读取器基础设施并且可以用来方便地与专用NFC设备进行通信。

  The initial idea behind NFC is to combine existing standards (specifically ISO/IEC 14443 contactless smartcard technology and FeliCa/JIS X 6319-4) into a system that can both communicate with existing transponders/smartcards/tags, with existing reader infrastructure and that can be used to easily communicate with dedicated NFC devices.

  初​​始NFC标准（ISO / IEC 18092）因此限定根据这些现有协议的对等网络通信模式。除了是向后兼容，NFC标准允许两个NFC设备至（自动）握手2台NFC设备之间的连接。这是不可能的读卡器+卡设置：既不两个读卡器也不两张牌可以相互沟通，这样的角色必须在读取器/卡场景pdefined $ P $

  The initial NFC standard (ISO/IEC 18092) therefore defines the peer-to-peer communication mode based on those existing protocols. In addition to being backwards compatible, the NFC standard allows two NFC devices to (automatically) handshake a connection between two NFC devices. This is not possible in a reader+card setup: neither two readers nor two cards can communicate with each other, so roles have to be predefined in a reader/card scenario.

  因此​​，最初，读写器模式只是为了访问NFC标签（无源数据存储设备），并可能接触式智能卡。卡仿真模式（HCE或SE为基础）是打算与现有的ISO / IEC 14443（或FeliCa的）基础设施（例如，即已经到位的演变成NFC之前读者）的相互作用。而对等网络模式，是为NFC设备之间的通信专门introdcued。

  Therefore, initially, reader writer mode was only intended to access NFC tags (passive data storage devices) and possibly contactless smartcards. Card emulation mode (HCE or SE based) was intended for interaction with existing ISO/IEC 14443 (or FeliCa) infrastructure (e.g. readers that were already in place before the evolution into NFC). And peer-to-peer mode was introdcued specifically for the communication between NFC devices.

  为什么所有的模式如今被用于pretty多的情况？

  我的猜的是，驱动因素这方面的发展之一是对等网络模式在Android上缺少API的支持。在Android上对等网络模式仅通过Android Beam的访问，因而不是真正能够用于双向通信。另一个因素的可能的是，在对等网络模式协议栈比的读写器模式（NFC-DEP + LLCP（+ SNEP）+应用协议与ISO-DEP +应用程序更复杂协议）。

  I guess that one of the driving factors for this development was that peer-to-peer mode on Android lacks API support. On Android peer-to-peer mode is only accessible through Android Beam and consequently not really usable for bidirectional communication. Another factor might be that the peer-to-peer mode protocol stack is more complex than that of reader writer mode (NFC-DEP + LLCP (+ SNEP) + application protocol vs. ISO-DEP + application protocol).

  所以的选项1 的主要使用，因为它（之前的Andr​​oid 4.4）是实现了NFC双向通信的唯一选择。由于Android 4.4系统也的选项3 的可以用来建立相似的场景。

  So option 1 is mainly used because it was (before Android 4.4) the only option to implement bidirectional communication over NFC. Since Android 4.4 also option 3 could be used to build similar scenarios.

  是选项3 的比其他选项更安全？

  Is option 3 more secure than the other options?

  没有，一点都没有。在所有的三种情况下，安全性必须通过应用层处理。底层通信协议没有采用任何加密/完整性保护的/ etc。机制。

  No, not at all. In all three scenarios, security must be handled by the application layer. The underlying communication protocols do not employ any encryption/integrity protection/etc. mechanisms.

  之所以选项3 的是移动支付prefered只是向后兼容性方面：使用HCE你可以实现与现有的非接触式智能卡读卡器（例如，因为它们是用交互的应用程序在EMV支付系统）。

  The reason why option 3 is prefered for mobile payment is simply the backwards compatibility aspect: Using HCE you could implement an application that interacts with existing contactless smartcard readers (e.g. as they are used in EMV payment systems).

  这篇关于NFC操作模式之间进行选择的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！