Talk:Subscriber identity module

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Telecommunications (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

Merger proposal[edit]

There is a separate article for micro-SIM that replicates some of the text and images from this main article. Is there any opposition to merging these two articles? --Rubena (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged. So far as I can see the only thing that separates a "micro-SIM" from a "SIM" is the physical size. (After the articles are merged, I might be sufficiently motivated to add appropriate references to ISO/IEC 7810 for the sizes.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It turns out that the table of sizes is a template, included in both articles, so I've added the 7810 sizes. If SIM and micro-SIM are merged, the template should probably be deleted and its contents moved into the merged article. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Disagree The differences between the 3FF (micro-SIM) and the previous SIM, the Mini-SIM, are much more than just making the physically card smaller. I could do that with a pair scissors. One of the main additions is the ability to authenticate the cellular towers that it's connecting to where as previously only the tower authenticated the SIM card; (ex: unregistered Femtocells like magicJack's, cell network spoofing attacks, or GSM SIM card unlocking) beyond that, there are many other underlying changes to the chip, which should go into its article. I expect the mico-SIM article to have a strong up-tick as the iPad is released in the coming weeks and people coming to wikipedia for info are interested mainly in what the micro-SIM is and why it's different from the SIM currently in their cell phone and therefore deserves its own article. Justin Ormont (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
If the articles are kept separate I suggest that the Other SIM sizes section be deleted from micro-SIM, because it is not relevant if all micro-SIMs are the same size (15x12mm). Mitch Ames (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I support the merge proposition... Justin, i'm sorry but a 3ff card is exactly the same as most uSim cards. in the only source used to justify the differences, all so-called "new features" described are on the UICC, i.e. the smartcard circuitry which equips uSim, as you can see in [1] or [2]... And i think GSMA is a reliable source in the SIM card domain, isn't it ?
3FF card size is defined in ETSI 102 221, available at no cost online on http://etsi.org/ and, as you can see, UICC is not limited to 3ff card. Zeugma fr (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the ETSI 102 221 reference. I've updated {{SIM Card sizes}} to include it. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
One more point : Micro-SIM real name is 'Mini-UICC'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeugma fr (talkcontribs) 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I'm thinking about updating {{SIM Card sizes}} with the names from ETSI TS 102 221 (ID-1 UICC, Plug-in UICC, Mini-UICC) but that should really be done at the same time that all references in the articles (including the title) are updated/merged. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Should the UICC article be merged with SIM/Micro-SIM as well? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know for sure, even if i work in the smartcard/telecom domain (i've been working for Ingenico, Gemalto, now working for Xiring). The naming subject is a mess, even inside well-known industry actors. The general convention is that the general subject you're working on helps you to pinpoint what you're talking about.
For example, the acronym SIM originally describe the circuitry used for subscriber authentication, and does not necessary need to be a smartcard. UICC is more precise, it contains CC, which tells that it is a circuitry on something removable.
Usage have made the terms recovering multiple subjects, for example, SIM can now be replaced by SIM-circuitry, SIM-Card format, SIM-application toolkit (API), ...
the good practice, when writing specifications or norms, is to describe precisely what you are talking about, for example "UICC module on ID-000 card, with UMTS masks". But this is not correct for general public or common acceptance.
If i was responsible for a reorganization, i would do this :
  • SIM would describe the original SIM card, format ID-1 and ID-000, limited to GSM/GPRS, and would point to a uSIM_(telephony) article for UMTS/CDMA/3G matters
  • UICC should be a link inside the uSIM article,
  • UICC should still be a separated article, as the UICC circuitry can be found in different forms (usb key, micro sd card... see http://www.gemalto.com/uicc_role/form_factors.html).
  • Mini-UICC or Micro-SIM would be a paragraph inside the uSIM article.
I just saw that the disambiguation page uSIM is correct...
This is just my NSH opinion.... Zeugma fr (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions to "Usage in Mobile Phone Standards" section[edit]

In this section, I noticed the second sentence reads, "The equivalent of a SIM in UMTS is called the Universal Integrated Circuit Card (UICC), which runs a USIM application, while the Removable User Identity Module (R-UIM) is more popular in CDMA-based devices e.g. CDMA2000."

HOWEVER, that is not entirely true if you compare that with the UICC entry at [1] that says, "In a GSM network, the UICC contains a SIM application and in a UMTS network it is the USIM application."

Therefore to reads like the UICC is the physical card itself while the application is what identifies the card as SIM or USIM.

Maybe that sort of distinction/clarification should be made somewhere?

Theharlans (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Thanks, Jim.

Sim cutter[edit]

I removed [3]

A device manufactured by NooSY Apple[2] has now been released allowing the conversion of mini-SIM cards to micro-SIM cards via a mechanism not unlike that of a hole-puncher.

there's no way this belongs in the lead, which is intended to summarise the article and should only have key points. I question if this belongs at all. Perhaps brief mention of the existance of sim cutters but I don't see the need for any particular brand. Cutting a sim is hardly neuroscience and inventing one is hardly going to win you the nobel prize. I have my doubts most designs are even patentable. There are already lots of different variants and probably just going to be more as time grows on Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

... and by far the cheapest design is a pair of scissors! 86.161.56.74 (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

IMSI vs. ICC-ID[edit]

Why is there a mobile station identification number inside the IMSI when there also is a individual account identification number inside the ICC-ID? Shouldn't one of them suffice? --Abdull (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You may have multiple ICCIDs per single IMSI and this is potentially useful for IMSI reuse, when contact terminates (postpaid) or when "post grace" period ends (prepaid). Mobile operator may order new SIM card to be manufactured for the same IMSI with different ICCID, and keep KI, ADM1, SPC, PIN1, PUK1, PIN2 and PUK2 for both old and new SIM cards in its billing (most often old data are of historic interest only, because operator doesn't have physical access to the old SIM card anyway) --xrgtn (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

ICCID is not the same as IMSI[edit]

Reader beware!

24.87.67.125 (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible errors in section: Authentication Key?[edit]

The current article states: "In practice, the GSM cryptographic algorithm for computing SRES_2 (see step 4, below) from the Ki has certain vulnerabilities[citation needed] that can allow the extraction of the Ki from a SIM card and the making of a duplicate SIM card."

My understanding is that the function used to derive SRES_2 from Ki is not specified in the GSM standard; rather, it is left to the operator to define this.

COMP128 is one implementation of the A3/A8 function that has been broken thereby allowing an attacker to derive Ki from a number of SRES_2 responses. IIRC, the implementation of COMP128 did appear in the GSM specs but as an example of a possible function for deriving Ki; It is not is mandated by GSM (which I see as implicit in the quoted text above.)

Should we clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.242.155 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)



Subscriber Identity ModuleSubscriber identity module – Correct capitalisation, per WP:TITLEFORMAT. The requested title already exists as a redirect, but I think the two should be swapped. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support, at least in the absence of any evidence that capitalisation is warranted. NoeticaTea? 22:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of SIM adapters[edit]

Note: Care must be taken when removing a SIM adapter from a standard GSM SIM holder as it might bend or break SIM connector pins. I learnt it myself when I broke the pins. I found out on internet that this is a common mistake and many people have and are experiencing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.161.106.50 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nano SIMs[edit]

Now that ETSI have announced the official Nano SIM standard, shouldn't there be some detailed mention of the upcoming Nano SIMs, apart from on the table? Khairul Islam 04:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sic transit gloria mundi[edit]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/07/21/sim-cards-have-finally-been-hacked-and-the-flaw-could-affect-millions-of-phones/

Someone want to put a dollar figure on that? EllenCT (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect citation and link[edit]

This article says, "As required by E.118, The ITU regularly publishes a list of all internationally assigned IIN codes in its Operational Bulletins. The most recent list, as of June 2012, is in Operational Bulletin No. 1005."

But OB 1005 does not in fact have a list of IINs. The current list is now in OB 1040 (pages 13--86) which was issued in 2013 November. It is updated frequently as issuers are added, deleted, et cetera.

http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/opb/sp/T-SP-OB.1040-2013-OAS-PDF-E.pdf

--71.178.95.236 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Duo Sim card[edit]

I have no real technical knowledge of SIM cards, but recently received a "duo" sim card which was a "standard" SIM card with a micro SIM card emebedded in it. After a bit of head scratching looking at Wikipedia & Googling I discovered that you can renove the micro card, which is what I needed to do to fit it into my tablet. I feel that there should be a possibly brief mention of this in this article so that people don't search in vain.

Jrvzn (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The company MicroSim[edit]

What happened to the company MicroSim that made PCB schematic capture and board generation, and circuit simulation simulation software? Thanks, Chris Arena Portsmouth, Rhode Island 68.9.188.136 (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Which field corresponds to the 'user-known' number for the SIM?[edit]

Asking because I have a SIM sent to me by a UK phone provider that works for sending and receiving calls, but has a 'blank' phone number -- so my phone (Android) cannot tell me the number of my phone, and apps (such as Google Contacts) cannot, either -- and some are quite confused [AKA: crash].

It would be quite helpful if the article made it clear where this number is stored, so a reader can use the correct terminology when trying to get the service provider to understand the problem. quota (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UICC
  2. ^ http://www.noosyapple.com/