How to secure a PDF???

sleep2much

Who mentioned it's all done with illegal downloads? I've added the comedy screen captured pdf to my page for you to laugh at.
When you make the pdf there are several security options before you save, password required to open, no printing, no edititing etc....but still not secure 100% IMO

Aiadi

Many thanks to all those who contributed:T. The reason I was asking is that I do send important letters and documents that are usually signed in my name to work in PDF format and was looking for something that would make it less than straight forward for Joe public to edit or alter these docs. I do realise that nothing is 100% secure but I guess that I'll have to give the professional Acrobat software a look.

The idea of documents that can only be viewed for a certain time is also compelling if it exists ( a bit of a James Bondy doc with self-destruction component).

On a related note, is there a way to tag these files securely with some unique identifiers that would change if the file is altered in any way?

Aiadi

sleep2much wrote: »

When you make the pdf there are several security options before you save, password required to open, no printing, no edititing etc....but still not secure 100% IMO

Are these options available in simple programs like PDFcreator or CutePDF used to create pdf files from within other applications?

sleep2much

Aiadi wrote: »

Are these options available in simple programs like PDFcreator or CutePDF used to create pdf files from within other applications?

I'm not sure, I've only ever used the pdf maker in Photoshop....sorry

djbd1973

Aiadi wrote: »

Are these options available in simple programs like PDFcreator or CutePDF used to create pdf files from within other applications?

For those sort of options, you would probably have to purchase a more comprehensive version of some of the programs rather than a free download version.

bookduck

I agree with what you are saying isofa, but one ends up putting in so much time and the cost, the 2 seconds later it is to no avail, makes me wonder if it should be done in the first place. A copyright notice may just as well suffice?

Often harder you make something, more of a challenge it becomes and I think this especially true in computing.

Although they might not be 'Techies', does not mean that they are ignorant and can't drag drop the pdf onto a decoding package or operate google.

CD are both a good and bad example of things being copied and or ripped off, but there have always been people copying illegally, even if it was us as kids taping the top 20 hits of the radio that week and trying to hit the stop button before the DJ spoke.

Perhaps a read only word document would suffice just as well and save the cost of acrobat, which offers slightly better protection.

My dentist had a convertable Merc and he always left his hood down (I lived in a sunny country for a few years), "Aren't you worried that someone steals your radio" I once asked. "No", was the reply, "It is cheaper than them slitting my roof to steal the radio"

converse

sco0ter wrote: »

How techie do you have to be to type "Unlock PDF" into google??? Due to this and the fact most people who will view a PDF will have a PC and internet access then unlocking a PDF is extremely easy..

I do agree with isofa on this one too.

Not to all users, look how many here ask the simpliest of questions without googling first.

sco0ter wrote: »

That is a totally different scenario. If the OP had asked if it would be ok to lock a car with selotape and leave the keys in the ignition he would have got the same type responses

I disagree here too, it's exactly the same, with google you are giving someone the tools, just as someone who breaks into a car will have the tools.
Replacing the locks with Sellotape allows everyone - with or without knowledge to break in - and that's a different scenario.

sco0ter wrote: »

1. Who said the tools are illegal???
2. The OP asked for our comments.. He got them . Now he can either ask for other ways to secure the document or distribute it and we will help there as well. In my opinion distributing a locked PDF can easily be unlocked by the person recieving or someone he knows. The best way to get round this is to distribute in a format that cant be edited in the first place.

There was a long on going law suite with Adobe and one of the crackers ElcomSoft, I doubt Adobe have ever conceeded it's legal to break their security, but I may be wrong!

Regardless, if someone secures the document and makes it their copyright, stating is can't be repurposed, copied, edited, then, again, I'm with isofa - of course you are doing something illegal breaking the seal so to speak and doing what is non-permitted by the creator, just because you can crack it and do it doesn't make it legal. Just like copying CDs, DVDs in the other example is the same. It may go on, and many people may do it, but that's a different distinction between whether it is legal or not.

As you mention google, I assume then you didn't find all the third party tools which secure PDFs to a higher degree than the basic (and weak) Acrobat security? Surely that would have been better advice to the OP too?

LockLizard being a popular one http://www.locklizard.com/pdf_security.htm but a google for 'PDF security' will bring up what you are looking for.

sco0ter wrote: »

Now you have me with this rant as I just cant see what you are trying to say. People here gave an opinion. If you want to give the OP advice telling him to distibute his work as a locked PDF then thats up to you but you are giving him bad advice.

I don't think that was the intention, nor do I think it was bad advice. The OP was told how to secure them, which is what he asked. Because the secuity isn't theat strong, doesn't make the advice bad. That's in Adobes court.

The screen-shot PDF is useless for a print workflow, you can screen-shot anything, so I don't see the point here, you'll end up with a poor version, so it's hardly a copy even to rival a camcorder cinema copy of a film

:beer:

djbd1973

I have just put an editing restriction on a PDF using the professional version of acrobat 8 and when I took it to Photoshop it asked for the password before opening.

Yeah you can do a screen grab when its open but it would dissuade the average Joe.

I have been using PDFs in my job for about 10 years and never thought about trying to crack a code where I didn't have it or search to find a way but then thats just me.

sleep2much

I did not say that a screenshot would be proper bells and whistles pdf copy of the original pdf, but it did prove that a pdf can be manipulated, the 3rd option on that page I made is a not very high res screenshot copy, yes it does look rubbish, but if the person getting a faked pdf had never seen the original they could be fooled, when someone says cannot in bold writing they just ask to be proved wrong.
What has the legal illegal debate got to do with editing pdf?
If we want to bring in an off topic Analogy, then answer me the question why do all these Polish and Latvian cars I see driving around have no car tax yet some members are more concerned that I may have downloaded a pirate mp3.

isofa

sleep2much wrote: »

I did not say that a screenshot would be proper bells and whistles pdf copy of the original pdf, but it did prove that a pdf can be manipulated, the 3rd option on that page I made is a not very high res screenshot copy, yes it does look rubbish, but if the person getting a faked pdf had never seen the original they could be fooled, when someone says cannot in bold writing they just ask to be proved wrong.
What has the legal illegal debate got to do with editing pdf?
If we want to bring in an off topic Analogy, then answer me the question why do all these Polish and Latvian cars I see driving around have no car tax yet some members are more concerned that I may have downloaded a pirate mp3.

The legal - illegal debate, is connected with hacking and breaking the security on a secured PDF, or screen-shotting and making a low-res copy. It has nothing to do with editing, who said it did? The original thread was about security: hence it's relevance.

Fail to see the relevance of your analogy. The analogy used were connected with security and having the correct tools.

I'm certainly not more concerned about illegal MP3s, than other more important topics, but everyone has a different standpoint. All originators of media, be it a PDF, music CD, DVD will all be concerned about people ripping off their work, unless they have put it in the public domain, and rightly so.

I've been using PDF workflows since they were invented from basic long term document storage, to high resolution proofs and final edits sent to printers for magazines, I've never worried about someone cracking the security, if they do, and make an edit and pass it further on, they've broken my licence terms, which, me and my company would agree is illegal.