How to make assembley strong named?

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

I have a small dll made in Managed C++, not mine. I can't compile my solution because it says that that assembley must be strong name. I can't recompile it so is the a solution to strong name already compiled dll. Thanks in advance.

[Edit - Moved from answer by OP - Henry]
(Don't know should I post here. Working from mobile ) The libary is mixed mode , so ilasm doesn't work. I need it for my shell extension so it needs to be registrated in GAC. Is there a posability to create some kind of wraper to call a dll outiside of GAC. Either way thanks all , nice comunity didn't expect answer so fast.
[/Edit]

Posted 14-Feb-11 5:20am

apaka

Updated 14-Feb-11 10:40am

Henry Minute

v2

Add a Solution

3 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Manas Bhardwaj · Answer 1 · 2011-02-14T05:23:00

Solution 1

This [^]should help you.

Posted 14-Feb-11 5:23am

Manas Bhardwaj

Comments

Nish Nishant 14-Feb-11 11:24am

May not work for a mixed mode DLL.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 14-Feb-11 11:27am

5 Anyway. (I don't know if OP requires mixed mode.)
--SA

Nish Nishant 14-Feb-11 11:33am

Consider it's MC++ it's highly likely that it's mixed mode.

Henry Minute 14-Feb-11 16:41pm

The OP has responded with an answer. I have moved it into the question.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov · Answer 2 · 2011-02-14T05:26:00

Solution 2

Do you still use Managed C++? It is obsolete now, replaced with C++/CLI.

You really want to use strong names for all assemblies, by many reasons.
The problem is that once you referenced strong-named assembly, it pulls all other assemblies to get a strong name.

If you don't have access to source code, it still can be signed.
Make a key using sn, ildasm and ilasm with the key.

sn -k 2048 key.snk
ildasm myAssembly.dll /out:MyAssembly
ilasm myAssembly /key:key.snk /dll /output:myNewAssembly.dll

It may not work with mixed-mode library (managed+unmanaged).

—SA

Posted 14-Feb-11 5:26am

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov

Updated 14-Feb-11 5:52am

v4

Comments

Nish Nishant 14-Feb-11 11:32am

SA, the OP has stated that he does not have access to the source code. So I don't think that article will help him.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 14-Feb-11 11:39am

Oh, thank you...
--SA

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 14-Feb-11 11:50am

See fixed Answer. Thank you very much again.
--SA

Nish Nishant 14-Feb-11 11:52am

That will only work if the MC++ DLL was compiled as pure IL. If it's mixed mode with unsafe calls into native code, it's unlikely that the author can get this working as he wants to. I assume he's trying to use the DLL with CAS requirements and that's failing because of all the native code. But definitely worth a try I guess.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 14-Feb-11 12:08pm

Sure, I agree; I noted this problem in my Answer.
Well, do you know the way to sign a mixed-mode library, not using source code?
I don't know, quick search did not give me anything good...
--SA

Nish Nishant 14-Feb-11 12:10pm

No, in fact it would probably not even be possible. So perhaps the OP needs to look at other alternatives.

Henry Minute 14-Feb-11 16:41pm

The OP has responded with an answer. I have moved it into the question.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 16-Feb-11 21:42pm

Sorry, it looks like you're locked in. It looks like combination of mixed mode and lack of source code is a dead end for a strong naming (and giving up strong name is not good as well). I can give you an answer even at least one of of these two factors is not the case. Otherwise (according to Nishant, see above), it is not solvable.
--SA

Anupama Roy · Answer 3 · 2011-02-14T05:48:00

Solution 3

I suppose this dll was working before & suddenly it stopped working in your project.I would suggest,you clean the projects, remove bin and all references to DLLs and add them again.Rebuild your application and run.It may resolve.If this doesnt work,you can try using strong name signing tools like sn.exe

Posted 14-Feb-11 5:48am

Anupama Roy

Comments

Nish Nishant 14-Feb-11 11:49am

I am sorry but this answer does not apply to the OP's question at all. Please read the other answers posted here, and the comments in those answers.

Anupama Roy 14-Feb-11 12:04pm

Appreciate your prompt response! I have read the question as well as the answers.I have provided my suggestion to OP.I answered in that way because I beleive the cleaning of solution & referencing dlls again may solve the error that says assembly must be strong name.If doesnt,then only need to think about converting it to strong name.

Nish Nishant 14-Feb-11 12:08pm

The OP does not have source access to this DLL, which is most likely a mixed mode DLL that was written using the now obsolete MC++ syntax. MC++ DLLs are very hard to sign because they are not fully MSIL. Even with C++/CLI unless the assembly was compiled with the pure or safe compiler switches, it's very hard or even impossible to have it strongly named.

Cleaning the solution, removing and reading references etc. will be quite unlikely to be of help in this situation. I already commented this to the other two responders, so I was surprised to see a 3rd response on similar lines.

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to help but sometimes it's best not to dilute the responses by posting redundant information that has a very low likelihood of helping the OP. Thanks.

Sandeep Mewara 14-Feb-11 14:05pm

I agree on first half of the comment but have a little different thinking on the last part :)

I found that, when we are facing some issue, at that time we are ready to try any and everything that might help.

Surely the current response is of not much of use as the source code of dll is not there but in general if an answer has any likelihood to help, I would like to listen.

And now I know, you would not agree on this :) and its fine as this is totally based on individuals. Just wanted share... :)

Anupama Roy 14-Feb-11 23:38pm

Thanks for sharing your thoughts :-)

Sandeep Mewara 14-Feb-11 23:44pm

:)