Yes, absolutely. Sorry I did not make that distinction before. Thanks,
-Trey > 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.
