Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Strong Name #27

Closed
ResiEvil opened this issue Apr 12, 2017 · 10 comments · Fixed by #543
Closed

Strong Name #27

ResiEvil opened this issue Apr 12, 2017 · 10 comments · Fixed by #543

Comments

@ResiEvil
Copy link

Is it possible to strong name the assemblies?

Many Thanks

@vkhorikov
Copy link
Owner

vkhorikov commented Apr 17, 2017

I would prefer not to strong name the package. Could this help it your situation: https://github.com/dsplaisted/strongnamer ?

@Ironbell
Copy link

Ironbell commented Apr 9, 2018

Worked like a charm and solved the problem for me. Thank you very much!

@yakimovim
Copy link
Contributor

What is the reason why you don't want to sign the assembly? It is not very convenient to use two NuGet packages (yours and StrongNamer) instead of one.

@rizksobhi
Copy link

rizksobhi commented Feb 15, 2021

StrongNamer is causing great issues. In my situation, the only way to use your library is when it's signed. Thanks

@vkhorikov
Copy link
Owner

I plan to release a signed version of the library, similar to how Dapper does it. But I don't have an ETA yet unfortunately.

@adcorduneanu
Copy link

Vladimir, I don't find your reasoning for non-signing strong enough, but more like a personal flavor on your side. I would prefer working with a strong name assembly every day as this gives some assurance that nobody tampered with the existing implementation, as it will require the original key to sign it. In most companies, there are policies in place that will require this one, together with a digital signature (signtool.exe).

The community should have priority in detriment of flavors.

Having the key in is actually a minimal effort, compared with the possibility of searching for a drop-in replacement for any unsigned library, unbundling the existing package and signing it internally, or using some kind of unsecure NuGet that will do the signature for you.

I would like to see it in the very next release if possible.

@vkhorikov
Copy link
Owner

Well, I did change my opinion, see my last comment.

@bothzoli
Copy link
Contributor

Hey @vkhorikov,
I have created a PR (#543) to address this issue.
Please let me know if you're happy with this solution.
I'm not sure if anything is needed for nuget.org to accept a new package with the same prefix.

@vkhorikov
Copy link
Owner

Fantastic work, thanks @bothzoli . This is probably the longest standing unresolved request for this library.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

7 participants