strongname

We have a mixed mode assembly application (MFC+WinForms) running on .Net 4, Windows 2008 R2 that constantly uses 100% cpu on one thread. Using ProcessExplorer we see the following stack on the busy thread. We can also see another 10 threads using just 0.01% CPU that are running clr.dll!StrongNameSignatureVerification. The spinning thread doesn't prevent the rest of the application from running but wastes CPU time. The stack trace of the busy thread is as follows: ntoskrnl.exe!IoAcquireRemoveLockEx+0xe7 ntoskrnl.exe!memset+0x22a ntoskrnl.exe!KeWaitForSingleObject+0x2cb ntoskrnl.exe

I am writing a Visual Studio 2012 extension, for internal use, which requires that all assemblies have a strong name. I am dependent on RestSharp (and a few other dlls), and since it is not strongly named, I am adding a strong name to it by following this . Everything works according to the output of the process, and even visual studio claims it is strongly named if I look at the properties of RestSharp.dll in the project references. However, when I go to use my extension I get a FileLoadException claiming: Could not load file or assembly 'RestSharp, Version=104.1.0.0, Culture=neutral,

This question already has answers here : What is strong naming and how do I strong name a binary? (5 answers) Possible Duplicate: What is strong naming and how do I strong name a binary? Actually, yesterday I attended an interview. There they asked me 1 question about strong name. I was not able to guess what it is? please explain about this. Thanks. From MSDN : A strong name consists of the assembly's identity — its simple text name, version number, and culture information (if provided) — plus a public key and a digital signature. You can use strong naming to ensure that when you load a DLL

Trying to get my head around authenticode code-signing and strong-naming. Am I right in thinking that if I code-sign an exe that references a few dlls (not strong named) that a malicious user could replace my DLLs and distribute the app in a way that appears as if it's signed by me, but is running their code? Assuming that's true, it seems like you wouldn't really want to sign a .NET app without strong-naming the whole thing, otherwise you're giving people the ability to execute code under the guise of an app you wrote? The reason I'm unsure, is that none of the articles I found online

Aside from invoking the command line to add a strong name to an assembly, is there any APIs out there that let you resign an assembly once it has been stripped of its strong name? It depends on what you mean by an assembly being "stripped of its strong name". If an assembly is not strongly named, nothing (not even sn.exe) can resign the assembly until it has been re-built with a strong name. But to answer your question: all of the strong naming functionality is exposed through the CLR's unmanaged strong naming API . Specifically, you want StrongNameSignatureGenerationEx , which, as you'll

We have a set of COM components developed in VC++. When a reference to such component is added to a .NET project Visual Studio generates an interop assembly. We have a set of such assemblies now. While running our daily build we sign all the produced binaries with a digital signature. Interop assemblies are not signed since we don't feel we are the authors - anyone can use Visual Studio and produce the same assemblies. Should we sign the interop assemblies as well? Should we also sign them with a strong name (sn.exe utility)? What are the reasons to do so? This has been a tricky balance for