SP mode settings on 6004ex MFP
Incident Properties
Question
We're attempting a roll-out at UCLA and in our documentation we ask the customer to have a Ricoh tech set several SP mode settings. The report from the field is these SP mode settings don't exist on the 6004ex. Can you confirm if the SP mode settings have changed and if so, which, if any, need to be set instead.
- Enter Service (SP) mode.
- Locate the SP mode entry for Enhanced External Charge Unit. This is located under either 5-133-002 or 5-113-002, depending on the MFP model.
- Set this entry to “1:Expansion Device.”
- Save and exit SP mode.
- Reboot the MFP.
Thanks,
Nick.
Continuation of INCIDENT ID#: 3386: NEED MAINTENANCE SIGNATURE FOR XLET APPLICATION
Incident Properties
Question
Hello,
I had opened an incident 3386 to get a maintenance signature for our customer "U.S. bank National Association" as we resolved a minor issue where we are not displaying an error dialog for one of the application failure. By mistake, Calvin updated that ticket with Android app information which was wrong and hence Gerardo closed it.
So, i had opened this ticket and am attaching the OmtoolXlet.zip as Gerardo requested for the signature since we need to release this to our customer.
Thanks
Niranjini
SafeCom beta signature request
Incident Properties
Question
Hi,
I'd like to request a 30-day beta signature for the SafeCom Go and RicohServlet applications attached to the incident. The client would like to conduct more field testing of our fix. I'm attaching the signed Beta agreement as well (sorry it's split into separate PDFs for each page...)
Thank you,
Sebestyen Bartha
Need Maintenance signature for Xlet application
Incident Properties
Question
Hello,
We have a minor issue where we are not displaying a error dialog for one of the application failure which is resolved.
So, We needed a maintenance signature for our OmtoolXlet application as we need to give it to our customer "U.S. bank National Association".
Can i submit the zip file with OmtoolXlet.jar for the signature?
Thanks
Niranjini
AAA failure to register provider
Incident Properties
Question
Hi,
I have an escalation from Generalitat de Catalunya - Dept. de Justicia where a number of devices are failing to have our AAA provider register. The registeration of the web services is timing out.
Now we found a solution, which happened by accident, in the IPv4 settings when using static information the domain name was cleared out and all worked fine. Adding the domain back doesn't re-introduce the issue.
Before doing this, the machine was rebooted many times. The applications uninstalled, re-installed.
We are looking for an explanation to give our customer why this failed because it has been an ongoing issue for a while.
Here is the exception:
Alternate TLS 1.2 solutions
Incident Properties
Question
Hi,
A while back we tried working with "higher TLS 1.2 support" firmware. We couldn't get the MFP to connect over TLS 1.2 and because the FW can be over-written or is a downgrade compared to current FW, we abandoned the effort.
We then tried using Bouncy Castle to negotiate the TLS 1.2 communication. That loaded in our app but I think we didn't go as far as we could have due to other priorities. (as an aside we already use bouncy castle to provide sha256 support).
We want to open up the investigation to Bouncy Castle again. Before we go down this path we are wondering if you know if this approach has been used successfully. We don't want to know who or anything like that, just if it's feasible.
If not Bouncy Castle, perhaps some other library?
Thanks,
Nick.
14 Day Demo Signature Request for SafeCom Go Ricoh 6.10
Incident Properties
Question
My apologies. Please delete this request
Ricoh Compatibility Testing Request
Incident Properties
Question
Compatibility Testing Submission Generated by Support System ...
SDK/J Maintenance Signature
Incident Properties
Question
Any plan to update the two libraries as mentioned in the ticket (Incident ID#: 2645)?
Incident Properties
Question
Hi,
The ticket (Incident ID#: 2645) was submitted a long time ago. As mentioned in that ticket, there is no security issue with those libs because they are used by Ricoh internally.
However, our Product managers now would like to know if Ricoh has had any plan to update those libs in the future?
Thanks,