Talk:Chip Authentication Program

Merge of PINsentry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge PINsentry into Chip Authentication Program. -- Jjasi (talk) 07:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for. The PINsentry page seems unnecessary given the detail here. Jjasi (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. PINsentry describes the exact same thing, but is a much less well informed stub. PINsentry is just the marketing name of one single UK bank for the Chip Authentication Program. Their readers are exactly the same as the many other CAP readers that lots of banks are rolling out at the moment. They are fully compatible and interchangeable. No need to have a separate article for each bank's marketing term for the exact same technology. Markus Kuhn (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger - no need for separate article for Barclays. _Talk Islander 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree The PINsentry system has specific details that would be lost in any merger Little Professor (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? Any specific differences between systems can easily be mentioned in this article, but it still doesn't warrent it's own article. _Talk Islander 12:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. PINsentry is just Barclay's branded implementation of CAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.220.230 (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 say merge, 1 says not. If nobody objects within the next 48 hours I'll summarise the merge proposal as a vote to merge. Jjasi (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge done. Didn't copy anything across from the old article as it didn't seem to add anything to that already here. Jjasi (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong page name?

Isn't that "Chip Authentication Protocol" instead of "Chip Authentication Program"? For example, I found this page which talks about Chip Authentication Protocol. Should we rename that page?

Toutoune25 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NatWest

NatWest also uses this and it seems their card reader is compatible with Nationwide's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanson (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also compatible with Barclays'. 86.22.78.112 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe any reader can be used to read any card. (Regardless of who supplied the card/reader.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.199.224.151 (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, APACS consortia members decided to create a standard hardware specification for the reader so that any UK card could be used with any branded reader. The NatWest/RBS reader (manufactured by Xiring), e.g. the RBS/NatWest branded readers have the Identify and Sign buttons that are not used by the bank. GilmertonMetropolis (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academic paper describing UK CAP protocol

I am a co-author of an academic paper (published at Financial Cryptography 2009), describing the operation of the UK CAP variant. Contributors to the article may wish to incorporate some of the information it offers. SJMurdoch (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Done, as of 2009-06-30. - quixoticgeek —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"Incompatibility" section

The "Incompatilility" section states that "CAP readers are generally not compatible with cards from differing issuing banks."

This is rubbish. You can use a card issued by any UK bank in any UK bank's card reader. They are all compatible.

86.162.152.187 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chip Authentication Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]