Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 783697
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T20:35:24+00:00 2026-05-14T20:35:24+00:00

Is there any way to secure your assembly down to the class/property & class/method

  • 0

Is there any way to secure your assembly down to the class/property & class/method level to prevent the using/calling of them from another assembly that isn’t signed by our company?

I would like to do this without any requirements on strong naming (like using StrongNameIdentityPermission) and stick with how an assembly is signed. I really do not want to resort to using the InternalsVisibleTo attribute as that is not maintainable in a ever changing software ecosystem.

For example:

Scenario One

Foo.dll is signed by my company and Bar.dll is not signed at all.

Foo has Class A
Bar has Class B

Class A has public method GetSomething()
Class B tries to call Foo.A.GetSomething() and is rejected

Rejected can be an exception or being ignored in someway

Scenario Two

Foo.dll is signed by my company and Moo.dll is also signed by my company.

Foo has Class A
Moo has Class C

Class A has public method GetSomething()
Class C tries to call Foo.A.GetSomething() and is not rejected

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T20:35:25+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 8:35 pm

    If you are wanting to limit the callers to only code that has been authenticode signed by a specific certificate, you can still use CAS (just not StrongNameIdentityPermission).

    Use PublisherIdentityPermission just like you would have used any CAS permissions. Or if you want to do it declaratively, use an attribute.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.