Live data from Hacker News

Stirling PDF: Self-hosted, web-based PDF manipulation tool

github.com

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Stirling PDF: Self-hosted, web-based PDF manipulation tool

#101

I have some questions about the Github Star history, it's very unusual to see a ~1 year old repo with 20k+ stars. It went from 6k to 15k+ stars in a few days around 2023 Christmas when HN/Github/Reddit traffic is usually lowest, and I didn't see a corresponding social media post or announcement around that time with that kind of traffic. If I'm wrong and there is some big social media post / promo that I missed, I ap…

Creator here, there was a big HN post that caused that big boom during Christmas

Got it! Strange that such a big post doesn't show up in that Google search! Really makes me lose trust in Google for basic research like that (sigh)

Sorry for insinuating that you maybe bought stars and congrats on the great project growth!

Hopefully if nothing else, my comment will answer this question for others that had the same "partially written by ChatGPT" == "willing to use bots for growth" suspicion.

Re: Stirling PDF: Self-hosted, web-based PDF manipulation tool

#103

I'd love it if this could be integrated into Paperless. Every now and then one of my scanned documents goes in upside down and I need to rescan. Clicking rotate, maybe reordering and letting it be rescanned would be great.

Ouch. Rotate the document in a pdf reader. And Print to pdf.

My Brother scanner SFTPs documents right to my server where they're ingested by Paperless-ngx. It's all really seamless other than occasionally when the document appears upside down for some reason.

Re: Stirling PDF: Self-hosted, web-based PDF manipulation tool

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, and that's what I tend to do with my documents IRL, but I think it would be really nice if we could move to a world where signing documents digitally actually meant something more than `signature.png`. In the EU, in order to have a legal guarantee of being treated as the same as a handwritten signature in all member states, you have to meet "Qualified Electronic Signature" level, which means cryptographic…

> involvement of some kind of trust services provider Marketplace at least in the US has shown that once you have this, the actual cryptography really doesn't matter. All anyone seems to care about seems to be "We are company X and have been doing this business for Y years and here's our standard operating policy. We emailed address A at time T1 and the person reading that email address used our online services to el…

There does exist a marketplace for documentation to be cryptographically encoded. E.G. Spec sheets. You must have a verified PGP key to open this document, that is generated for a company after they sign a NDA.

Re: Stirling PDF: Self-hosted, web-based PDF manipulation tool

#105
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm running this in a container on my nas. There isn't anything to maintain with tools like this. If setup, properly - they keep running unless stopped. They can even be auto-updated when their is a new image. I have several types of utility apps I'm self-hosting. I rarely have to do anything other than keep the OS updated.

What nas system do you use that runs containers? I tried the whole container thing and have to reboot my system every week

Unraid is nice, and pretty easy to maintain. You get a web interface and can set up auto updates. There a many different applications in their app store, too, or you can make your own using plain docker.

Re: Stirling PDF: Self-hosted, web-based PDF manipulation tool

#106
post #99

One thing I think is really lacking from the PDF ecosystem is good open-source tools around signing. PDF signatures are something that is legally important in a lot of the world with regulations like eIDAS. Unfortunately it's extremely difficult to cryptographically sign PDF documents with tools other than Adobe's and some other (often more sketchy) proprietary tools. Even if you figure out how to use stuff like Libr…

Completely agree. Source: I build things for a company[1][2] which is a TRA and a QTSP (eIDAS parlance). Two references which I promise will be interesting (re: qcerts and QES tooling): - excellent open source library for working with PDFs and digital signatures (incl. PDF ones): https://github.com/MatthiasValvekens/pyHanko - European Commission's DSS Tool (you can submit one PDF only, don't need both original and si…

I know this comment comes a bit late, but thanks so much! That library is exactly the kind of thing I have been looking for. I've just signed up using your app. I'm curious, my UK passport didn't scan correctly with NFC. Do you only support EU docs for NFC validation? I expected the NFC scanning to work with any ICAO 9303 document.

Re: Stirling PDF: Self-hosted, web-based PDF manipulation tool

#107
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree. Source: I build things for a company[1][2] which is a TRA and a QTSP (eIDAS parlance). Two references which I promise will be interesting (re: qcerts and QES tooling): - excellent open source library for working with PDFs and digital signatures (incl. PDF ones): https://github.com/MatthiasValvekens/pyHanko - European Commission's DSS Tool (you can submit one PDF only, don't need both original and si…

I know this comment comes a bit late, but thanks so much! That library is exactly the kind of thing I have been looking for. I've just signed up using your app. I'm curious, my UK passport didn't scan correctly with NFC. Do you only support EU docs for NFC validation? I expected the NFC scanning to work with any ICAO 9303 document.

> That library is exactly the kind of thing I have been looking for.

Ah, that's great to hear! You can message its author if you have any specific questions regarding it, he's a friendly and very competent fella.

> I'm curious, my UK passport didn't scan correctly with NFC. Do you only support EU docs for NFC validation? I expected the NFC scanning to work with any ICAO 9303 document.

Ah, one day I'll write a post / video / book / series of morbid novels on NFC in eMRTDs...

Long story short: we support NFC worldwide (NFC prompt is disabled for certain documents, e.g. Germany has a peculiar interpretation of ICAO 9303 where they require a type of Active Auth (vs Passive Auth which is what happens when you scan it with our app or with many other apps))).

However.

1. Sometimes the chip simply does not scan correctly. It takes a bit of time, there's a handshake involved, we send in a sort of hash of the MRZ so that the chip can give some (not all) of the NFC Data Groups (if you're familiar with the 9303 - e.g. we don't get (as part of Passive Auth) biometrics info such as your iris info). You have to hold it tight for a while. You have to hold it against the right spot on your mobile device (varies per model as you're likely aware). Chip has to be in good shape (confirmed from personal experience).

2. Countries interpret PKI (incl. the underlying x509 spec)... differently. One good recent example: the DSC (Document Signing Certificate embedded in your chip) has to have the same trust root as the corresponding CRL (cert revocation list where we check if the cert which signed the DSC - the so-called CSCA - has not been revoked). In practice... sometimes they differ. We handle exceptions and keep working on them, but it's a slow process.

So TL;DR sometimes it's just the physical process which gets in the way (and you then get the video pattern upload screen); sometimes we fetch the NFC data but cannot ensure its authenticity (cannot verify chain of signed certs up to a trusted root - UK like other countries has issued a few CSCAs; these are included in ICAO's PKD which we download, verify and then use). And sometimes all of this is well, but we conclude that the revocation status of the parent cert (the CSCA) is unknown.

If revocation information is included in the cert (e.g. through a so-called distribution point - which usually points to a URL (sometimes broken...), sometimes to a file (...), etc.), we have to make revocation checks and conclude that the cert inside the chip (DSC) and the parent cert(s) have not been revoked. Sometimes the latter process fails.

Sometimes the same document model (same country, doc type, same issue year, same physical security features etc.) embeds a different DSC which leads us to discover that some country has again introduced some non-conforming (against x509 spec, to be precise; e.g. in terms of validation path building) cert chain. We learn to handle them, but it's an ongoing process. Some docs for some countries still prove troublesome.

I don't know the particular onboarding attempt at hand, so it could be something from #1 or #2 above, or perhaps something else.

What can I say, it's fun... (I especially love how ICAO 9303 requires explicit unnamed elliptic curves (as the key algorithm for the keypair underneath the NFC's DSC).

If you want to chat more, shoot me an email :)

Post reply on HN