Lotus Protector Requires TLS 1.0 Enabled

I have previously written about Lotus Protector for Mail Security integration with Lotus Notes 8.5.1 and later.  Once you have it configured the client integration works really well, and had definitely helped me reduce the amount of mail in my inbox over the last couple of months.

I recently came across a situation where a particular client machine could not see the protector integration in their mail file.  We checked the client version, notes.ini settings, mail template, and everything seemed correct.   We launched IE and tried to use the web interface to Lotus Protector for Mail Security, and got this:


Other machines were working just fine (browser and Notes client), and that is when we can across this technote, which documents the requirement for TLS1.0 to be enabled in the browser in order to access Lotus Protector for Mail Security

Sure enough a quick check of IE Settings showed that for some reason TLS 1.0 was disabled.


A simple check of the box, and Lotus Protector was accessible from the machine.

Technote 1444380: Web interface of Lotus Protector for Mail Security appliance cannot be accessed

As a reminder if you are using both Lotus Protector for Mail Security, and Lotus Connections, they don’t play nicely together in 8.5.1 or 8.5.2, this issue is not fixed until 8.5.3, in the meantime you can contact support for a hotfix.

4 Responses to Lotus Protector Requires TLS 1.0 Enabled
  1. Craig Wiseman
    April 4, 2011 | 1:29 pm

    Interesting. Lotus Protector supports TLS 1.0 (SSL v3.1), but Lotus Domino (any version) does not.

    Gentle readers may wish to vote on that:
    “Please update Domino to fully support TLS (SSL v3.1)”

  2. Sean Brown
    April 4, 2011 | 3:29 pm

    I’m not sure which version of IE your using, but Firefox ships with TLS enabled by default and has for quite some time, and IE 8 also ships with it enabled.

    • Mitch Cohen
      April 4, 2011 | 3:32 pm

      Sean, the default is definitely on, we found some machines where it was switched off for some reason. Mainly throwing this out there as info for anyone else who might run in to it

      • Sean Brown
        April 8, 2011 | 12:49 am

        That’s interesting, did you find out how/why it got switched off? I would think that’s not something a typical user would touch.