# Documentation wrong about maximum PIN length

**URL:** <https://support.nitrokey.com/t/documentation-wrong-about-maximum-pin-length/6516>\
**Category:** HSM\
**Created:** [September 19, 2024, 10:21am UTC](https://support.nitrokey.com/t/documentation-wrong-about-maximum-pin-length/6516 "2024-09-19T10:21:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kaputt](https://support.nitrokey.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@kaputt](https://support.nitrokey.com/u/kaputt)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2024, 1:09pm UTC](https://support.nitrokey.com/t/documentation-wrong-about-maximum-pin-length/6516/3 "2024-09-19T13:09:43Z")

</div>

Thank you for the clarification.

Working in this whole token ecosystem is just a plain horrible experience. Very confusing, inconsistent and incomplete documentation, misleading error messages, tons of tools with lackluster maintenance and similar naming and functionality (e.g. pkcs11-tool vs p11tool). Then suddenly Java and GUIs (SCShell), too. Just terrible if you want to have a robust, reproducible procedure you can trust to work for decades to come, let’s say for an internal root CA.

It’s not just a rant, it is hopefully also seen as a call to action for Nitrokey and others to innovate on HSM management instead of (exclusively) building on the rotten base of historical “standards” (see PIN length). I know I’m not the only one who craves to interface with an HSM with something as easy as a run-of-the-mill REST API.

---

_[View the full topic](https://support.nitrokey.com/t/documentation-wrong-about-maximum-pin-length/6516)._