I chekced the article "Giving a .NET Assembly a Strong Name" at
http://www.codeguru.com/columns/experts/print.php/c4643. My procedure was
right.

I then used Dotfuscator Community Edition (not support Office addin) against
a C# console exe, following the same procedure. It worked. Look like
Xenocode postbuild broke the strong name.

What obfuscator do your guys use? How much $?


"Jason" wrote in message
...
Same problem: xxx.dll does not represent a strongly named assembly

Here is what we did:

1. checked "Delay Sign only" while kept "Sign the assembly" check
2. built, got UnsignedAddin.dll
3. ran Outlook, add-in cannot load
4. manualy sign from commoand line OK: ran sn -R unsignedAddin.dll
keyfile.pfx
5. ran Outlook, addin loaded OK.

6. built again
7. obfuscate the UnsignedAddin.dll =ObfuscatedUnsignedAddin.dll
8. ran sn -R ObfuscatedUnsignedAddin.dll keyfile.pfx
Got error message: obfuscatedUnsignedAddin.dll does not represent a
strongly named assembly

"Ken Slovak - [MVP - Outlook]" wrote in message
...
Any time you obfuscate you must delay sign your assembly and actually
sign it with that SNK or PFX after the obfuscation. Otherwise the
signature/strong naming is also obfuscated along with your code.

--
Ken Slovak
[MVP - Outlook]
http://www.slovaktech.com
Author: Professional Programming Outlook 2007.
Reminder Manager, Extended Reminders, Attachment Options.
http://www.slovaktech.com/products.htm


"Jason" wrote in message
...
Can anyone recommend a obfuscator?

We tried Xenocode postbuild but got an error: "This assembly is not
strong name signed." Looks like the message came out of the
RunCaspolCommand method in the CaspolSecurityPolicyCreator.cs of the
SetSecurity project.

Can Dotfuscator handle addin and the security challenge?