Having read about strong names in .NET here, for example, I have the following question:
We have an Authenticode code signing certificate with which we sign all our EXE, DLL and MSI files. The benefit of that is that Windows knows the MSI comes from a trusted source, and also that the authenticity of each file can be verified if required.
We currently do not use .NET strong names. I have read that strong-naming a file essentially means that it is digitally signed with a self-signed certificate. My opinion on this is that an Authenticode certificate signed by a trusted certificate authority is much more valuable than a self-signed certificate whose authenticity nobody can verify anyway because they lack the root certificate (and we are not going to distribute that to end users, are we!?).
Question: Is there any value in additionally strong-naming assemblies if Authenticode signing is already used?
The answer will depend upon why you have created a strong name – the intended use of strong name is to create a unique identity for the assembly. For example, if you need to push your assembly in GAC then strong name is must. However strong name is not really meant for verifying the authenticity of publisher – Authenticode serve that purpose. See this article: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/shawnfa/archive/2005/12/13/authenticode-and-assemblies.aspx