I would modify that statement: > It > does not look like relying on the CLR to ensure assemblies have not been > tampered is a viable solution.
This is only true *in the absence of a secured underlying platform*. IOW, don't bother relying on the CLR if you don't secure the OS. However, If you do secure the OS, then the CLR actually does make it harder to modify signed assembly. So, it comes down to: how hard do you want to make it? You can read messages from the Advanced DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from Advanced DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
