This is the public portal for all IBM Z Hardware and Operating System related offerings. To view all of your ideas submitted to IBM, create and manage groups of Ideas, or create an idea explicitly set to be either visible by all (public) or visible only to you and IBM (private), use the IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com).
We invite you to shape the future of IBM, including product roadmaps, by submitting ideas that matter to you the most. Here's how it works:
Start by searching and reviewing ideas and requests to enhance a product or service. Take a look at ideas others have posted, and add a comment, vote, or subscribe to updates on them if they matter to you. If you can't find what you are looking for,
Post an idea.
Get feedback from the IBM team and other customers to refine your idea.
Follow the idea through the IBM Ideas process.
Welcome to the IBM Ideas Portal (https://www.ibm.com/ideas) - Use this site to find out additional information and details about the IBM Ideas process and statuses.
IBM Unified Ideas Portal (https://ideas.ibm.com) - Use this site to view all of your ideas, create new ideas for any IBM product, or search for ideas across all of IBM.
ideasibm@us.ibm.com - Use this email to suggest enhancements to the Ideas process or request help from IBM for submitting your Ideas.
We are working with third parties who have specific TR-31 key block requirements. Specifically, two of our partners need the mode of use on exported P0 key blocks to be set to "B". Currently, ICSF only allows exported P0 key blocks to have a mode of use of either "E" (ENC-ONLY) or "D" (DEC-ONLY), based on the key type (OPINENC and IPINENC, respectively).
So our ask would be for ICSF to allow us to specify the more generic Mode of Use keyword of "ENCDEC" when exporting P0 key blocks through CSNBT31X, in order to set the mode of use to "B". We would need this to work for both IPINENC and OPINENC keys.
Idea priority | High |
By clicking the "Post Comment" or "Submit Idea" button, you are agreeing to the IBM Ideas Portal Terms of Use.
Do not place IBM confidential, company confidential, or personal information into any field.
CEX7 ??? CCA 7.1.30 MCL
CEX6 ??? CCA 6.4.13 MCL
CEX5 ??? CCA 5.6.7 MCL
Due to processing by IBM, this request was reassigned to have the following updated attributes:
Brand - Servers and Systems Software
Product family - z Systems Hardware
Product - z Systems Hardware
Component - Crypto HW
For recording keeping, the previous attributes were:
Brand - Servers and Systems Software
Product family - z Systems Hardware
Product - z Systems Hardware
Component - Security / Crypto
Can I please get an update on the status of this request?
Also, we have encountered another issue, with EMV key blocks. We have a vendor issuing and expecting E0 key blocks with a version ID of B and a mode of use of N. The IBM documentation specifies that mode of use N is only valid for version ID A, not B, C, or D. The vendor previously used version ID A, so the key blocks were accepted. But now they have switched to version ID B while maintaining a mode of use of N, so the key blocks are no longer accepted by ICSF. Would it be possible to include support for mode of use N for all version IDs for E0 key blocks?
Thanks.
We should be finished with our development for TR-31 key blocks by the end of February. If needed, I can enhance the code later to incorporate this support if it isn't ready in time. We just may not be able to complete certifications with certain networks until this enhancement is implemented. So the sooner we can take advantage of it, the better.
We have discussed your requirement and we can support this. We are working on the details with the involved teams. Can you share your schedule requirements to aid in our planning?
Checking in, since it has been a couple weeks since submitting this request. Have you had a chance to evaluate this to determine if it can be supported? If so, do you have an estimate on when the support might be able to be added?
Checking in, since it has been a couple weeks since submitting this request. Have you had a chance to evaluate this to determine if it can be supported? If so, do you have an estimate on when the support might be able to be added?