I am writing a Fiddler extension which I would like to sign. Unfortunately this is not possible because it seems Fiddler itself does not have a strong name, therefore my project cannot reference it.
Has any thought been given to this? Are there plans to sign Fiddler?
1 Answer, 1 is accepted
answered on 20 May 2015, 01:24 AM
As you've noticed, strong-naming is effectively "viral"-- if you strong name anything, you must strong-name everything; this can be disastrous as many folks who have strongnamed shared libraries can attest.
Making matters even worse, strong names don't really provide what most developers expect (e.g. you can modify an assembly that has been strong named and the system will not complain, contrary to what people expect of a "signed" binary).
FWIW, Fiddler is Authenticode-signed; Authenticode signatures are checked by Windows and many security components like firewalls and AV software; Authenticode signatures are not, however, viral.
Do you want to have your say when we set our development plans?
Do you want to know when a feature you care about is added or when a bug fixed?
Telerik Feedback Portal
and vote to affect the priority of the items