[GH-ISSUE #23] Embed Validation folder in my project to prevent Standard.Licensing.dll from being replaced #20

New issue

Open

opened 2026-02-26 01:35:47 +03:00 by kerem · 1 comment

kerem commented

2026-02-26 01:35:47 +03:00

Owner

Originally created by @santiago-ribero on GitHub (Aug 22, 2022).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/junian/Standard.Licensing/issues/23

Hi. I was wondering if by referencing the Standard.Licensing nuget package, it is possible for a "customer" to circumvent the licence validation by replacing the original Standard.Licensing.dll with a dummy version of it, that implements the same interfaces, classes and public methods but doesn't validate anything.
In order to make sure this doesn't happen, I consider including in my core project the classes that are in the Validation folder. Do you agree this is a good approach?

Thank you so much.

Originally created by @santiago-ribero on GitHub (Aug 22, 2022). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/junian/Standard.Licensing/issues/23 Hi. I was wondering if by referencing the Standard.Licensing nuget package, it is possible for a "customer" to circumvent the licence validation by replacing the original `Standard.Licensing.dll` with a dummy version of it, that implements the same interfaces, classes and public methods but doesn't validate anything. In order to make sure this doesn't happen, I consider including in my core project the classes that are in the [Validation folder](https://github.com/junian/Standard.Licensing/tree/master/src/Standard.Licensing/Validation). Do you agree this is a good approach? Thank you so much.

kerem commented

2026-02-26 01:35:48 +03:00

Author

Owner

@CraigRichards commented on GitHub (Oct 8, 2022):

Hey @santiago-ribero,
I'm reviewing this library as well. Thanks for your thoughts.

In regards to this

Compiling Standard.Licencing into your project sounds like a good approach along with Obfuscation.
You could also consider taking a checksum of the external dll and validate.

What do you think?

@CraigRichards commented on GitHub (Oct 8, 2022): Hey @santiago-ribero, I'm reviewing this library as well. Thanks for your thoughts. In regards to this - Compiling Standard.Licencing into your project sounds like a good approach along with Obfuscation. - You could also consider taking a checksum of the external dll and validate. What do you think?

No labels

pull-request

No milestone

No project

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference

starred/Standard.Licensing#20

No description provided.

Rows
Columns