Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.acorn.misc > #2845 > unrolled thread

Protected PDF Files

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc

Contents

  Protected PDF Files Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-07 14:07 +0000
    Re: Protected PDF Files charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 14:37 +0000
    Re: Protected PDF Files Raymond Wiker <raw@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan> - 2011-12-07 15:43 +0100
      Re: Protected PDF Files Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2011-12-07 16:16 +0100
        Re: Protected PDF Files Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-07 15:56 +0000
          Re: Protected PDF Files Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2011-12-07 17:38 +0100
            Re: Protected PDF Files Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> - 2011-12-12 23:27 +0000
              Re: Protected PDF Files Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-12-13 02:45 +0000
                Re: Protected PDF Files Martin Wynn <m.wynn@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 17:27 +0000
                Re: Protected PDF Files Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> - 2011-12-28 21:46 +0000
                  Re: Protected PDF Files Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 04:30 +0100
                    Re: Protected PDF Files Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2012-01-04 18:01 +0000
        Re: Protected PDF Files charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-12-07 15:57 +0000
          Re: Protected PDF Files Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2011-12-07 17:43 +0100
        Re: Protected PDF Files Gwyn <gwyn@gwyn-oakley.org.uk> - 2011-12-08 13:01 +0000
          Re: Protected PDF Files Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-12-08 17:18 +0000
            Re: Protected PDF Files druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-10 10:56 +0000
              Re: Protected PDF Files Chris Evans <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 11:58 +0000
                Re: Protected PDF Files Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> - 2011-12-12 23:02 +0000
              Re: Protected PDF Files Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 16:57 +0100
                Re: Protected PDF Files druck <news@druck.org.uk> - 2011-12-13 21:05 +0000
                  Re: Protected PDF Files NedA <news@ned.uk.invalid> - 2011-12-13 22:04 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2845 — Protected PDF Files

I just received an invoice as a PDF attachment, not unusual
in itself.

The e-mail itself states:

Please note that our invoices are now protected to ensure
the integrity of the content. PDF documents should be
opened with Adobe Reader, the latest version of which can
be downloaded for free from http://get.adobe.com/reader/. 


In fact, double clicking the attachment loads the file, as
expected, into !PDF, from which it can be exported as a
Drawfile, which is fully editable as any other Drawfile.

I have asked the sender if they would care to comment; it
will be interesting to see if they reply.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2846

In article <523de26065see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>,
   Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> I just received an invoice as a PDF attachment, not unusual
> in itself.

> The e-mail itself states:

> Please note that our invoices are now protected to ensure
> the integrity of the content. PDF documents should be
> opened with Adobe Reader, the latest version of which can
> be downloaded for free from http://get.adobe.com/reader/. 


> In fact, double clicking the attachment loads the file, as
> expected, into !PDF, from which it can be exported as a
> Drawfile, which is fully editable as any other Drawfile.

> I have asked the sender if they would care to comment; it
> will be interesting to see if they reply.

Is it really a "protected" file.  I've tried to get at protected pds and
not succeeded.

-- 
From KT24 

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2847

Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> writes:

> I just received an invoice as a PDF attachment, not unusual
> in itself.
>
> The e-mail itself states:
>
> Please note that our invoices are now protected to ensure
> the integrity of the content. PDF documents should be
> opened with Adobe Reader, the latest version of which can
> be downloaded for free from http://get.adobe.com/reader/. 
>
>
> In fact, double clicking the attachment loads the file, as
> expected, into !PDF, from which it can be exported as a
> Drawfile, which is fully editable as any other Drawfile.
>
> I have asked the sender if they would care to comment; it
> will be interesting to see if they reply.

As far as I know, the PDF "protection" is worthless... it is simply a
flag that it is up to the application to honour.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2848

In message <m2hb1c8msz.fsf@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan>
          Raymond Wiker <raw@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan> wrote:

> Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> writes:

>> I just received an invoice as a PDF attachment, not unusual
>> in itself.
>>
>> The e-mail itself states:
>>
>> Please note that our invoices are now protected to ensure
>> the integrity of the content. [...]

> As far as I know, the PDF "protection" is worthless... it is simply a
> flag that it is up to the application to honour.

Yes, but as far as I know all RISC OS software honours the protection 
flag. However, as soon as the flags allow the document to be printed 
(and they usually do, because that is the whole point of sending PDF 
invoices around), then even that does not mean anything because you 
can print to PostScript, which recovers all vector content without any 
protection. Then, you can convert it back to an unprotected PDF file.

-- 
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner         MW Software      http://www.mw-software.com/
        RISC OS Software for Design, Printing and Publishing
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2849

In article <79bae83d52.martin@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin
Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> In message <m2hb1c8msz.fsf@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan>
>           Raymond Wiker
> <raw@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan> wrote:

> > Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>
> > writes:

> >> I just received an invoice as a PDF attachment, not
> >> unusual in itself.

> >> The e-mail itself states:

> >> Please note that our invoices are now protected to
> >> ensure the integrity of the content. [...]

> > As far as I know, the PDF "protection" is worthless...
> > it is simply a flag that it is up to the application to
> > honour.

> Yes, but as far as I know all RISC OS software honours
> the protection flag. However, as soon as the flags allow
> the document to be printed (and they usually do, because
> that is the whole point of sending PDF invoices around),
> then even that does not mean anything because you can
> print to PostScript, which recovers all vector content
> without any protection. Then, you can convert it back to
> an unprotected PDF file.

And presumably there is no flag that says "do not export as
Drawfile"?

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2851

In message <523dec6217see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>
          Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> 
wrote:

> In article <79bae83d52.martin@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin
> Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
>> In message <m2hb1c8msz.fsf@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan>
>>           Raymond Wiker

>>> As far as I know, the PDF "protection" is worthless...
>>> it is simply a flag that it is up to the application to
>>> honour.

>> Yes, but as far as I know all RISC OS software honours
>> the protection flag. However, as soon as the flags allow
>> the document to be printed (and they usually do, because
>> that is the whole point of sending PDF invoices around),
>> then even that does not mean anything because you can
>> print to PostScript, which recovers all vector content
>> without any protection. Then, you can convert it back to
>> an unprotected PDF file.

> And presumably there is no flag that says "do not export as
> Drawfile"?

That does not really matter. The usual convention is that exporting in 
an editable format is interpreted as editing, or at least preparing to 
edit, so this is covered by the "do not edit" flag.

The conceptual problem is that certain types of printing (PostScript) 
are effectively equivalent to exporting the file in an editable 
format, so the very common flag combination "Printing: yes, Editing: 
no" cannot really be enforced.

-- 
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner         MW Software      http://www.mw-software.com/
        RISC OS Software for Design, Printing and Publishing
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2910

The date being 7 Dec 2011, Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> 
decided to write:

> The conceptual problem is that certain types of printing (PostScript)
> are effectively equivalent to exporting the file in an editable
> format, so the very common flag combination "Printing: yes, Editing:
> no" cannot really be enforced.

My car insurance company has taken to sending me documentation by 
email as a "protected" PDF file, which includes forms that I need to 
complete or modify and return. Printing is allowed, because obviously 
they expected the forms to be printed and returned by post. I did the 
PostScript trick, edited the relevant pages in !Draw and sent them 
back in a PDF file. They didn't query it.

-- 
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2913

Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

> My car insurance company has taken to sending me documentation by 
> email as a "protected" PDF file, which includes forms that I need to 
> complete or modify and return. Printing is allowed, because obviously 
> they expected the forms to be printed and returned by post.

It's not obvious to me; do they not just expect you to send a changed PDF
back?  (Assuming that the form contains editable fields and static other
sections.)

-- 
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsreplyaaa@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2924

In message <mpro.lw4fnr001qzpm007k@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>
          Jeremy Nicoll - news posts 
<jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:

> Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> My car insurance company has taken to sending me documentation by
>> email as a "protected" PDF file, which includes forms that I need to
>> complete or modify and return. Printing is allowed, because obviously
>> they expected the forms to be printed and returned by post.
> 
> It's not obvious to me; do they not just expect you to send a changed PDF
> back?  (Assuming that the form contains editable fields and static other
> sections.)

Even better is when you are requested to provide proof of residence by 
producing a utility bill. Difficult if you have paperless billing, so 
I just download a PDF version and ask the person requesting the 
"proof" which address they would like me to put on the document... 
Priceless reactions :-)

Martin.

-- 
Martin Wynn, Newport, Shropshire.
A. HTML.
Q. What are the two most annoying things about emails?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3145

The date being 13 Dec 2011, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts 
<jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> decided to write:

> Richard Porter <dontusethis@address.uk.invalid> wrote:

>> My car insurance company has taken to sending me documentation by
>> email as a "protected" PDF file, which includes forms that I need to
>> complete or modify and return. Printing is allowed, because obviously
>> they expected the forms to be printed and returned by post.

> It's not obvious to me; do they not just expect you to send a changed PDF
> back?  (Assuming that the form contains editable fields and static other
> sections.)

They probably don't, but the file contains the certificate of 
insurance which they probably need to convince the insurers that the 
customer can't change. Not that there's any point in altering it 
because the details should be on the insurance database.

-- 
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3146

On 28/12/2011 22:46, Richard Porter wrote:

> They probably don't, but the file contains the certificate of
> insurance which they probably need to convince the insurers that the
> customer can't change. Not that there's any point in altering it
> because the details should be on the insurance database.

We've had the little insert-in-the-window certificate come as a PDF file 
to Blue Peter ourselves...

...is this even legal?!?

The cost of insurance, the *least* they can do is mail a real one!


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3215

In article
<4efbded0$0$2528$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>, Rick
Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 28/12/2011 22:46, Richard Porter wrote:

> > They probably don't, but the file contains the
> > certificate of insurance which they probably need to
> > convince the insurers that the customer can't change.
> > Not that there's any point in altering it because the
> > details should be on the insurance database.

> We've had the little insert-in-the-window certificate
> come as a PDF file to Blue Peter ourselves...

> ...is this even legal?!?

You had better ask a lawyer in France.
:-)

We do not have that system in the UK, nor did they in
Switzerland, when I lived there.

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2850

In article <79bae83d52.martin@bach.planiverse.com>,
   Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> In message <m2hb1c8msz.fsf@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan>
>           Raymond Wiker <raw@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan> wrote:

> > Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> writes:

> >> I just received an invoice as a PDF attachment, not unusual
> >> in itself.
> >>
> >> The e-mail itself states:
> >>
> >> Please note that our invoices are now protected to ensure
> >> the integrity of the content. [...]

> > As far as I know, the PDF "protection" is worthless... it is simply a
> > flag that it is up to the application to honour.

> Yes, but as far as I know all RISC OS software honours the protection 
> flag. However, as soon as the flags allow the document to be printed 
> (and they usually do, because that is the whole point of sending PDF 
> invoices around), then even that does not mean anything because you 
> can print to PostScript, which recovers all vector content without any 
> protection. Then, you can convert it back to an unprotected PDF file.

if you have a documment that does not allow printing, what then?

-- 
From KT24 

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2852

In message <523dec6bcdcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk>
          charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <79bae83d52.martin@bach.planiverse.com>,
>    Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
>> In message <m2hb1c8msz.fsf@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan>
>>           Raymond Wiker <raw@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan> wrote:

>>> As far as I know, the PDF "protection" is worthless... it is simply a
>>> flag that it is up to the application to honour.

>> Yes, but as far as I know all RISC OS software honours the protection
>> flag. However, as soon as the flags allow the document to be printed
>> (and they usually do, because that is the whole point of sending PDF
>> invoices around), then even that does not mean anything because you
>> can print to PostScript, which recovers all vector content without any
>> protection. Then, you can convert it back to an unprotected PDF file.

> if you have a documment that does not allow printing, what then?

Then you cannot edit the file easily, unless you have non-conforming 
software that does not care about the permission flags. Or you need to 
recompile some open source software and remove the check yourself.

In any case, you should consider whether you really want to act 
against the express will of the document's author.

-- 
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner         MW Software      http://www.mw-software.com/
        RISC OS Software for Design, Printing and Publishing
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2860

In message <79bae83d52.martin@bach.planiverse.com>
          Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:

>In message <m2hb1c8msz.fsf@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan>
>          Raymond Wiker <raw@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan> wrote:
>
>> Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> writes:
>
>>> I just received an invoice as a PDF attachment, not unusual
>>> in itself.
>>>
>>> The e-mail itself states:
>>>
>>> Please note that our invoices are now protected to ensure
>>> the integrity of the content. [...]
>
>> As far as I know, the PDF "protection" is worthless... it is simply a
>> flag that it is up to the application to honour.
>
>Yes, but as far as I know all RISC OS software honours the protection 
>flag. However, as soon as the flags allow the document to be printed 
>(and they usually do, because that is the whole point of sending PDF 
>invoices around), then even that does not mean anything because you 
>can print to PostScript, which recovers all vector content without any 
>protection. Then, you can convert it back to an unprotected PDF file.
>

I suspect there must be additional ways to add protection. Sometime ago
I downloaded a pdf document that was tied the actual computer that did
the download. It allowed printing from that computer and I was able to
print to a postscript printer. However no matter what I tried I could
not print postscript to file. I did find another way - I think it was to
print to file with a different printer driver then decode this back - it
is a while ago and the details are foggy. Of course when they made it
hard the challenge of beating the protection was all that mattered...

-- 
Gwyn 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2861

In article <9737603e52.Gwyn@gwyn.abershock.com>, Gwyn
<gwyn@gwyn-oakley.org.uk> wrote:

> In message <79bae83d52.martin@bach.planiverse.com> Martin
>           Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:

> >In message <m2hb1c8msz.fsf@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan>
> >          Raymond Wiker
> >          <raw@unknown-00-23-6c-8d-9e-26.lan> wrote:

> >> Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>
> >> writes:

> >>> I just received an invoice as a PDF attachment, not
> >>> unusual in itself.

> >>> The e-mail itself states:

> >>> Please note that our invoices are now protected to
> >>> ensure the integrity of the content. [...]

> >> As far as I know, the PDF "protection" is worthless...
> >> it is simply a flag that it is up to the application
> >> to honour.

> >Yes, but as far as I know all RISC OS software honours
> >the protection flag. 

[Snip details]

> > Then, you can convert it back to an unprotected PDF
> >file.

> I suspect there must be additional ways to add
> protection. Sometime ago I downloaded a pdf document that
> was tied the actual computer that did the download. It
> allowed printing from that computer and I was able to
> print to a postscript printer. However no matter what I
> tried I could not print postscript to file. I did find
> another way - I think it was to print to file with a
> different printer driver then decode this back - it is a
> while ago and the details are foggy. Of course when they
> made it hard the challenge of beating the protection was
> all that mattered...

Exactly - The only reason I tried exporting to Draw and
seeing if the Drawfile were editable as usual was to see if
I could!

I have not heard back from the sender after telling them how
easy it was to edit...

-- 
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays         E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2871

On 08/12/2011 17:18, Russell Hafter News wrote:
> I have not heard back from the sender after telling them how
> easy it was to edit...

If they've reported that to Adobe, and Adobe can be bothered tracking 
down the author of the RISC OS PDF software, then that author could find 
themselves on the pointy end of a law suit. So please just keep such 
information to yourself.

---druck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2887

In article <jbvdt3$v78$1@dont-email.me>, druck
<URL:mailto:news@druck.org.uk> wrote:
> On 08/12/2011 17:18, Russell Hafter News wrote:
> > I have not heard back from the sender after telling them how
> > easy it was to edit...
> 
> If they've reported that to Adobe, and Adobe can be bothered tracking 
> down the author of the RISC OS PDF software, then that author could find 
> themselves on the pointy end of a law suit. So please just keep such 
> information to yourself.

I wonder on what grounds they could sue?
The USA may have a law!
Actually thinking about it, if the USA do have an appropriate law, you could
be in big big trouble e.g. Gary McKinnon!

Chris Evans

-- 
CJE Micro's / 4D                'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222             Fax: 01903 523679
chris@cjemicros.co.uk     http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex,     BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2909

The date being 12 Dec 2011, Chris Evans <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> 
decided to write:

> I wonder on what grounds they could sue?
> The USA may have a law!
> Actually thinking about it, if the USA do have an appropriate law, you could
> be in big big trouble e.g. Gary McKinnon!

Yes, if there's one thing the septics don't like it's being made to 
look stupid, especially if you demonstrate that their security is 
about as useless as a chocolate teapot.

-- 
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2896

On 10/12/2011 11:56, druck wrote:

> If they've reported that to Adobe, and Adobe can be bothered tracking
> down the author of the RISC OS PDF software, then that author could find
> themselves on the pointy end of a law suit. So please just keep such
> information to yourself.

Depends. In the EU we have various interoperability clauses. And, 
besides, on what grounds would Adobe actually sue? Their local law 
attempting to trump yours based upon some one-sided "agreement"? The 
DMCA (which is, believe it or not, NOT a global law)?

In reality, you'd probably get a C&D, if anything at all... I can rather 
imagine some pencil-pusher at Adobe: "RISC OS? Say what?".


Best wishes,

Rick.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.misc

csiph-web