• KevinS.ax785
  • NEWBIE
  • 0 Points
  • Member since 2010

  • Chatter
    Feed
  • 0
    Best Answers
  • 0
    Likes Received
  • 0
    Likes Given
  • 1
    Questions
  • 4
    Replies

Hi all,

 

I have been testing the SF plugin for Notes 8.5(.1) already for several weeks.

 

I have found the following:

 

it will only install properly if you adjust the plugin_customization.ini in the framework rcp folder and add the below line

 

com.ibm.rcp.security.update/TRUST_CERTIFICATE_AUTHORITIES=true 

 

This is offcourse due to the default security settings. I was told by SF that we needed to create a policy to circumvent this, which I have now done today.

 

I have created a new security settings document and adjustd the 'Signed plug-ins' section. I have adjusted the 'Installation of plug-ins signed by an unrecognized entity: ' to Always install, but when trying to install the plugin is fails to integrate with notes.

 

How do you guys roll this out in your company? I mean off course without creating a separate install package for it,since that is just a lazy workaround. This should be manageable via Policy centrally

 

Hoping on a good response

K.

 

Hi all,

 

I have been testing the SF plugin for Notes 8.5(.1) already for several weeks.

 

I have found the following:

 

it will only install properly if you adjust the plugin_customization.ini in the framework rcp folder and add the below line

 

com.ibm.rcp.security.update/TRUST_CERTIFICATE_AUTHORITIES=true 

 

This is offcourse due to the default security settings. I was told by SF that we needed to create a policy to circumvent this, which I have now done today.

 

I have created a new security settings document and adjustd the 'Signed plug-ins' section. I have adjusted the 'Installation of plug-ins signed by an unrecognized entity: ' to Always install, but when trying to install the plugin is fails to integrate with notes.

 

How do you guys roll this out in your company? I mean off course without creating a separate install package for it,since that is just a lazy workaround. This should be manageable via Policy centrally

 

Hoping on a good response

K.