-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 501
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
PDF Digital Signature #168
Comments
|
Agreed. |
|
I'm working on this. |
|
I have not had the time to look at this topic in detail Once we have that, we can add support for various standards. Having the right plan for this is key and ensures we do not have to throw away |
|
The basic signature works the same for all standards, so I'll start with this. Basic process looks like this:
So this two-stage process is the tricky part and can be re-used for all types of signatures. |
|
Hi Philipp, I agree it makes sense to focus on the api first. Also - without going into the details you laid out because I haven't yet read up about the involved steps - creating the signature is an important step. if there are two ways to create the signature (local or remote) then the api has to provide for that I am going to get back to you with more feedback about your bullet points and unless you want to keep all of this in your fork and you do want to contribute to pdfcpu I think we should get into a discussion about the design of this maybe on the #pdfcpu slack channel at some point - top down from the api preferably. Thank you for using pdfcpu 💚 |
|
Ciao,
if you need a tester, I'm here
2020-06-23 12:17 GMT+02:00, Horst Rutter <notifications@github.com>:
… Hi Philipp,
I agree it makes sense to focus on the api first.
Also - without going into the details you laid out because I haven't yet
read up about the involved steps - creating the signature is an important
step.
if there are two ways to create the signature (local or remote) then the api
has to provide for that
and If I am not wrong usually there are two ways to ship the signature -
either included in the PDF or detached, so we would need to provide for that
as well.
I am going to get back to you with more feedback about your bullet points
and unless you want to keep all of this in your fork and you do want to
contribute to pdfcpu I think we should get into a discussion about the
design of this maybe on the #pdfcpu slack channel at some point - top down
from the api preferably.
Thank you for using pdfcpu 💚
--
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#168 (comment)
|
|
@hhrutter I'm in the slack. you can ping me when you're online |
|
I am also ready and online in Slack |
|
Thank you so much for that link - Very useful! |
|
https://github.com/go-pdf-sign/go-pdf-sign Found an open source project based on pdfcpu to implement PDF Signing, Who is interested in studying, haha |
|
Yes, I am involved with that. |
|
@dotsoftcn: yes, I'm working on this with @hhrutter to bring PDF signing into pdfcpu. |
|
I consider this work in progress. |
|
@beeing still WIP, not ready for use yet. |
|
Thanks guys for the quick response. Looking forward for testing this. |
|
Putting my hand-up as interested. I am not sure if identifying the existence of a signature and returning information on it would be in the first use case, but this would be invaluable. Trying to find tooling to provide information about Docusign, e.g. created through their demo site, is proving difficult. The link for generating samples may be useful for future development around this. |
|
Hi! |
|
This is my primary feature request. For us this is the only current gap with this tool. Would be awesome if this was added. |
|
Some additional reference files may be found in the Govdocs selected corpus (or Govdocs). Information on those documents that are digitally signed here: https://gist.github.com/ross-spencer/ad51e6b29d8aa63440993aec07f2e307 (the list may ultimately prove not be exhaustive, but has been QA'd) |
|
Hi there, I was looking for a way to check if a document has been digitally signed. Actually the need is a check and not requires signature info extraction. Is there any feature in PDFCPU that can be used for the purpose? |
|
Looking at the info command I can see an information about signature existence. (SignaturesExist: Yes)
Thank you |
|
Hi there! SignaturesExist simply reflects any existing AcroForm SigFlags of a PDF. Thank you for using pdfcpu 💚 |
|
I see. But i guess the SigFlags is optional and in case it is not present is there a way to determine the presence of fields of field type /Sig?
Noticing the /Annot I tried annot list command to got as response: ` Widget: Page 3: Widget: I think matching the /Sig fields in there..... Dunno if there is a way to check.... Note: understand that the biometric signature is something different...... didn't specify because of my knowledge 'limits'... |
|
Here's another example of digitally signing a pdf, but it's an invisible signature, and it doesn't support signing a pdf that has been encrypted (again, it doesn't support encrypting and signing at the same time). But I still think it might be useful for current feature development. https://github.com/digitorus/pdfsign |
|
Hi. I really need this feature. It is one of the only things that is a blocker for me. I see it is still in development on the sign branch. I would love to help develop this feature and expedite its release. Additionally, I have a very specific requirement. I want to just embed a existing signature, instead of signing a pdf. I would love to develop out this feature. Thanks. |
|
Is it still in progress? |
|
This is work in progress! |
|
What's the ETA for this feature? |
|
I am about to cut a release, meanwhile work on digital signature handling is ongoing. |
|
I currently use https://github.com/intoolswetrust/jsignpdf which works fine. |
|
@hhrutter well done on the implementation, do you think this will be out before the new year? |
|
work is ongoing. |
|
4 years in making. |

it would be nice to have this feature too. I think it would make the product even better.
Thank you so much for this tool
:-)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: