Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Embedded SIM Design Means No More Swapping Cards

Posted by timothy on from the but-watch-for-the-new-skimmers dept.

judgecorp writes "A new remotely-programmable embedded SIM design from the GSMA operators' group means that devices can be operated on the Internet of things and won't have to be opened up to have their SIM card changed if they move to a different operator. The design could speed up embedded applications."

17 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why is this needed?

    1. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because nano-sim is too big for Apple users because it's still bigger than their penises.

    2. Re:why? by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      waterproof phones? My Motorola Defy is good and all, but those rubber plugs and the seal around the battery cover can only take 1M of water pressure.

    3. Re:why? by maliqua · · Score: 5, Insightful

      so you think it will be easier and more painless to have to call your provider each time you want to switch to activate it?

      i'll take fidgeting with a small sim card over dealing with a call center

    4. Re:why? by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only why? But I don't want it. This seems like a huge step backwards for consumers. One of the great things
      about GSM vs CDMA is the ability to move a phone from carrier to carrier or a number from phone to phone. I don't
      want an embedded sim that only the carrier can change and I can't swap to a different handset or carrier. Some
      things I routinely do are swap a sim when in a foreign country or put my sim into an old cheap phone when I take
      it to the beach or if my phone is acting up, dies, or needs to be charged.

    5. Re:why? by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that, but imagine what happens when they refuse to assist you in switching?

      When you have a physical sim you can swap it yourself. You have no such choice if you don't have control over the sim.

      This is actually a very large loss to phone users unless you can reprogram it yourself.

    6. Re:why? by VernonNemitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd say it is not needed. Because anything described as "remotely programmable" means "remotely abuse-able". Botnet operators will love it.

    7. Re:why? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 4, Funny

      I use Windows Phone, it crashes anywhere *you insensitive clod*.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    8. Re:why? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'd say it is not needed. Because anything described as "remotely programmable" means "remotely abuse-able". Botnet operators will love it."

      My thoughts exactly.

      If I buy a phone, I want it to be MY phone. I don't want or need "remotely programmable" bullshit. I am so tired of this kind of garbage I can hardly put it into words.

    9. Re:why? by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Heck even with a 'phone' it's useful. Imagine you arrive in Hong Kong at midnight and you want to move your phone to Vodaphone. You don't have to seek out some store and buy a SIM - Just happens presto.

      When I travel with my phone, I don't even want to turn it on before I put in a new SIM for the local system. Turn it on, it registers with the local carrier and your home carrier starts forwarding calls to it -- at international rates.

      I certainly don't want "presto" reprogramming my SIM. I don't want to have to call my home carrier to tell them to move it to X, and then X to have them move it back, and have one or both of them charge me for the privilege of screwing it up so I have no working phone at all. No thanks. That's one of the benefits of having GSM versus whatever. The phone is the SIM, and I can carry more than one to be more than one thing. And I can use the second SIM in my backup phone without it costing me a second plan on both carriers.

    10. Re:why? by aaronb1138 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is stupid. Moving a physical token is easier, faster, and more intuitive than digging around for credentials to some website or worse yet, dealing with your mobile provider to transfer an account. It's nice to know if my phone breaks, I can grab my previous model on the spot and shove the sim in and have a working phone without trying to deal with the provider. Even more so if I am playing with ROMs and hacking away at a couple pieces of hardware.

      Doing things online to physical devices is usually slower, less efficient, and less intuitive.

  2. Sounds good in theory... by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds good in theory, just so long as the "remote provisioning" can be handled by the user of the device, and the user doesn't have to ask permission from anyone.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  3. Internet of Things by rogueippacket · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This buzzword annoys me even more than Cloud. Cloud has more or less become common vernacular for describing Internet-connected servers which you may or may not own, but the term Internet of Things seems to imply that a) there were no "things" on the Internet before now and b) the "old Internet" simply isn't hip enough to run more devices, and you should be clambering all over a vendor to be a part of it. Ugh.

  4. Re:Would not be a problem at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    a SIM contains a cryptographic signature and some other things.

    It's basically a watered down TPM that has a unique ID, a few kilobytes of storage, and a cryptographic key set.
    A physical device like that makes it difficult to replicate the functionality of the SIM card, making it harder to make one device use the credentials and system identity of another device. (EG, it makes it harder for an attacker to steal your network identity and make lots of 1-900 number calls, which will then show up on YOUR bill, amongst other things-- like framing you in a murder by making all his calls with your number, etc.)

    Making this an easily reprogrammed internal chip makes that physical level of security go away.

    That's a bad thing.

    Sometimes being inconvenienced is really in your best interest.

  5. What could possibly go wrong? by CokoBWare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I view this as bad for a number of reasons:

    1. Normally, when you have service, it's attached to the SIM, not the phone. With this new embedded SIM model, this goes away. Your service is attached to the phone. Bad.
    2. Remotely programmable means that it will be even easier for hackers to fuck with your phone. Bad.
    3. Your phone is really no longer your phone. The carrier will have ultimate jurisdiction over the phone, unless you pull the battery. Bad.
    4. If I lose or seriously damage my phone, my SIM is gone, and I HAVE to buy a new phone and activate it again. Bad.

    I won't want a phone like this if this is how the carriers want to do business. I'll keep my removable SIM card thank you very much.

  6. Who, exactly, gets to send over the air updates? by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    To fix this issue, the GSMA has developed a non-removable SIM that can be embedded in a device for the duration of its life, and remotely assigned to a network. This information can be subsequently modified over-the-air, as many times as necessary.

    What this seems to do is take control away from the user, who could swap SIM cards, and give it to some carrier. This looks like something where you beg and plead with your old carrier to let you switch your device to a new carrier. There's a lot of elaborate key management in this system, and compromise of certain keys could break the whole system.

    Spec for the system architecture.

  7. Something wrong with headline by Pop69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Embedded SIM Design Means No Longer Able To Swap Cards"

    There, that reads better