A User Centric Security Model for Tamper-Resistant Devices

3.3 Frameworks for the ICOM
which it was dicult to bring dierent organisations to share the same smart card platform.
The change from perceiving the smart card as a security token to seeing it as a loyalty and
marketing medium imposed additional restrictions on it. Therefore, users cannot choose
to put an application on their smart cards; the privilege of an installing applications was
zealously and solely retained by the card issuers, leaving users with a restricted use of the
smart card platform.
Service Roll-out. With the ICOM, a card issuer has to acquire smart cards from a
card manufacturer and then either develop application(s) itself or acquire them from the
card manufacture or a third party. Once the cards are acquired and they have the card
issuer's application, they are posted to individual customers. This process is cyclic: the
card issuer may have to reissue new smart cards because of expiry of old ones or it may
want to introduce new services or meet new regulatory/legal requirements. Furthermore,
it takes a long time to oer new services in the ICOM, since an issuer has to order new
smart cards and install new applications on them and then has to issue these smart cards
to individual customers. Generally, new services are issued gradually at the time when the
issued smart cards are nearing the end of their lifecycle.
Costly. With the ICOM the cost for card issuers is incurred in two ways. The rst
is acquiring smart cards and getting them certied 4 (third party evaluation of security)
to meet any regulatory, standardisation or legal requirements. The second is the loss of
possible revenue in the service roll-out period or in the process of issuing a replacement
smart card. For example, if a cardholder loses a smart card and requests a new card it
usually takes from three days to a week (or sometimes more) in the case of the banking
industry before he/she receives it. In industries like telecom and transport the user might
acquire the card immediately from designated outlets. However, smart cards deployed in
the health sector or national identity cards might have longer re-issue waiting periods.
During this period, the customer cannot use the service(s) of the particular card issuer,
and this might result in loss of revenue and inconvenience for the user.
3.3 Frameworks for the ICOM
In this thesis, we analyse in some detail the dierent components of the ICOM frameworks
as required, to contrast them with those of the UCOM. For articulation of our arguments,
we are not going to dive into the technical details of each ICOM framework in subse-
4 Security Certication: For certain industries like banking, smart cards oered by the card manufacturers
have third party security evaluation as a standard product requirement. However, other industries
like telecom and transport often does not require such evaluations.
57