Sample PDF download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12wv1Pb7gh4vCKOGhX4cZ3aOrLSiOo4If/view?usp=sharing
So when the PDF is opened in A.Reader (Contineous release) it says the Certificate is invalid as Changes have been made to this document that rendered the signature invalid.
But I can’t see what/where is changed. Only a Signature (certificate) was added with our own application that adds correct signatures for thousands of other PDFs. No other changes performed. Verifying the Hash with our own code or using PDFBox2 with following code says the signature is valid (true).
So why is A.Reader complaining?
Any help much appreciated as I’m banging my head to the wall for some days now…
public static void main(String [] args) throws IOException, CMSException, OperatorCreationException, CertificateException
{
System.out.println("nValidate signature in SignatureVlidationTest.pdf; original code.");
byte[] pdfByte;
PDDocument pdfDoc = null;
SignerInformationVerifier verifier = null;
try
{
pdfByte = FileUtils.readFileToByteArray(new File(FOLDEROUT, "102089-5913E701-5EE6-AC3F-7B03-A8D27A7CD9FA.pdf"));
pdfDoc = PDDocument.load(new File(FOLDEROUT, "102089-5913E701-5EE6-AC3F-7B03-A8D27A7CD9FA.pdf"));
// pdfDoc = Loader.loadPDF(new ByteArrayInputStream(pdfByte));
PDSignature signature = pdfDoc.getSignatureDictionaries().get(0);
byte[] signatureAsBytes = signature.getContents();
byte[] signedContentAsBytes = signature.getSignedContent(pdfByte);
CMSSignedData cms = new CMSSignedData(new CMSProcessableByteArray(signedContentAsBytes), signatureAsBytes);
SignerInformation signerInfo = (SignerInformation) cms.getSignerInfos().getSigners().iterator().next();
X509CertificateHolder cert = (X509CertificateHolder) cms.getCertificates().getMatches(signerInfo.getSID())
.iterator().next();
verifier = new JcaSimpleSignerInfoVerifierBuilder().setProvider(new BouncyCastleProvider()).build(cert);
// result if false
boolean verifyRt = signerInfo.verify(verifier);
System.out.println("Verify result: " + verifyRt);
}
finally
{
if (pdfDoc != null)
{
pdfDoc.close();
}
}
}
Advertisement
Answer
Broken Cross References in First PDF Revision
The cross reference table at the end of your first revision looks like this:
xref 0 19 0000000000 65535 f 0000000018 00000 n 0000000348 00000 n 0000000422 00000 n 0000000481 00000 n 0000000776 00000 n 0000003138 00000 n 0000032630 00000 n 0000033308 00000 n 0000033489 00000 n 0000033723 00000 n 0000033932 00000 n 0000056202 00000 n 0000056645 00000 n 0000056837 00000 n 0000070988 00000 n 0000071312 00000 n 0000071521 00000 n 0000071543 00000 n 20 26 0000071844 00000 n 0000080069 00000 n 0000080373 00000 n 0000080556 00000 n 0000097791 00000 n 0000097813 00000 n 0000097833 00000 n 0000097853 00000 n 0000097876 00000 n 0000097899 00000 n 0000097922 00000 n 0000097945 00000 n 0000097968 00000 n 0000097991 00000 n 0000098014 00000 n 0000098037 00000 n 0000098059 00000 n 0000098083 00000 n 0000104407 00000 n 0000104444 00000 n 0000104483 00000 n 0000104565 00000 n 0000104704 00000 n 0000104728 00000 n 0000111035 00000 n 0000111072 00000 n 48 1 0000111098 00000 n 50 2 0000111296 00000 n 0000113066 00000 n
As you can see it consists of multiple subsections with object numbers 0..18, 20..45, 48, and 50..51. In particular there is no mapping for object numbers 19, 46, 47, and 49.
This is disallowed for two reasons:
For a file that has never been incrementally updated, and so in particular for the first revision of each PDF file, the cross-reference section shall contain only one subsection, whose object numbering begins at 0.
The cross-reference table (comprising the original cross-reference section and all update sections) shall contain one entry for each object number from 0 to the maximum object number defined in the file, even if one or more of the object numbers in this range do not actually occur in the file.
(ISO 32000-1 section 7.5.4 “Cross-Reference Table”)
Thus, the first cross reference table of a regular PDF must consist of only a single subsection. And even if that was not required, gaps with unmapped object numbers are not allowed.
Normally Adobe Reader ignores violations of these requirements, but in the context of signature validation it is stricter. Usually this shows in situations where the PDF in question is signed and then some arbitrary incremental update is added.
For example, I took your first revision (the first 114510 bytes of your file) and signed them and then extended them to LTA:
| only signed | signed and extended |
|---|---|
 |
 |
This has been the topic in multiple questions here on stack overflow:
- Why is one of these two itext 7 signed and validated document is not valid with Adobe DC reader?
- Sign concatenated PDF in append mode with CERTIFIED_NO_CHANGES_ALLOWED
- Adding LTV in signature makes pdf invalid using C#
- After add LTV signature got corrupted for some pdf file
- PAdES LTV signing of a PDF/A-3A document yields invalid signature
Additional Problems
There most likely are other issues still to be found in your example PDF, though. As mentioned above, cross references like in your first revision usually only cause problems after adding an incremental update to the signed PDF. That is not the case for your example PDF. Thus, I would expect other oddities in it.
Remarks
Some additional observations:
Starting from the first revision you have a number of extra entries in the document information dictionary: SIG_PAGE, SIG_LLX, SIG_LLY, SIG_URX, and SIG_URY. IMO this is not the appropriate place, although conforming readers may store custom metadata in the document information dictionary, they may not store private content or structural information there. Such information shall be stored in the document catalogue instead. (ISO 32000-1 section 14.3.3 “Document Information Dictionary”) IMO those entries look like processing instructions private to your work flow, not metadata of public interest.
Your signature dictionary contains a R value. Since PDF 1.5 this entry shall not be used, and the information shall be stored in the Prop_Build dictionary. (ISO 32000-1 table 252 “Entries in a signature dictionary”)