06-10-2010 06:07 PM
This one is a bit puzzling.
In my nightly builds of bbssh, I've recently started using the class CryptoInteger, which requires a Certicom signature. However, I did receive these and am signing the app with them. (Though I will double-check this configuration when I get home to make sure)
Once I started doing this, two users reported receiving this error message, at the point in time at which the app is accessing CryptoInteger:
Missing RCC signature. Not allowed to access Certicom functionality.
However, here's the part I don't understand: it's working fine on my device.
The devices in question:
9000 - 220.127.116.114 (Working)
9650 - 18.104.22.1681 (RCC exception)
8900 - 22.214.171.1242(RCC exception)
Also important: In the module info, I see that it's signed with RBB but not RCC. But if that's the case why would it work on my device but not on somebody else's?I would expect it to fail here as well.
Solved! Go to Solution.
06-11-2010 04:45 AM
It may be that on some handheld software versions some class you are using requires the RCC signatures whereas on others it does not -- this would definitely be a bug, but what can you do. The best course of action is to always sign all your modules doing crypto with the RCC key just in case.
(Shameless plug: you can reliably list the signatures of each module using the following tool I posted here: http://supportforums.blackberry.com/t5/Java-Develo
06-11-2010 01:16 PM
Thanks klyubin. This actually opened the door to another question. I confirmed last night - the modules were definitely not signed with RCC. That leads me to think that your comment is correct - perhaps some flaw in .464 that does not have it marked as a signed API.
It looks like the lack of signature was due to a glitch in the signature installation - probably my fault. I originally installed the signatures with 4.6; then copied them over to the 5.0 installation. I'm thinking when I did that, I did it before I received the RCC signature - and so 5.0 never got updated. Once I re-copied the sig db files over to 5.0, the signing worked fine and RCC was present.
Either way - your suggestion is the right way to go. That tool you provided looks pretty handy too -- it was annoying trying to track down the module signatures using the sig tool.