1 person found this helpful
Acrobat X password encryption is immune to brute-force password cracking. The algorithm is deliberately complex and slow enough that one can only test a few hundred passwords per second with a single cpu, and GPUs don't help. To have a strong password, stay away from dictionary attacks. Long pass phrases can be used. Acrobat X allows passwords or pass phrases up to 128 bytes in length in any language (based on UTF-8 encoding of the password).
I assume you are talking about a password to open the file for reading. Once the file is open it can be re-saved without encryption by many third party products.
I am talking specifically about the "Change Permission Password", the one that grants u permission to edit, print, and copy from pdf document, and not the one required to open the document for reading as you stated, i.e. " Open Document Password" !
As you can see in the second screenshot, despite having a strong "change permission password" while using the 256-bit AES encryption level/ Acrobat X password encryption, the online pdf unlocker site was able to decrypt that password and thus leading the user be able to edit, print, or copy content from the pdf document.
This has been always the case with or without requiring a "Document open Password" as I did try both cases and was unpleased to find out that any online pdf unlocking website was able to remove the "Change Permission Password".
Yes. Even with a null Open password the document is encrypted. But in order to display the PDF, it is necessary to be able to decrypt the document. Many non-Adobe viewers will willingly re-save the document without encryption, and ignore all the restrictions, too. The closest to what you want is LiveCycle, an adobe product that uses a different, certificate based, encryption. The details of the encryption are not public, so no 3rd party viewers can open such a document. Acrobat and Reader promise to respect the permissions.
1 person found this helpful
You can't have an unbreakable permission password, not even in theory. It doesn't work that way. If software can open a PDF, it's up to the software author to respect permissions. Since the rules of PDF are public and have been for 20 years, any software author can choose to ignore the permissions. Changing the kind of encryption of the password makes no difference.
It does not even need an unlocking site. A lot of software, even from "respectable" authors like Firefox, just ignores it, because it doesn't suit their ideas of how things should be.
Well that is unacceptable.
This means that the software's encryption services are useless since they can be breached!
If I can set a password for opening my pdf document as well as a permission password to control it being manipulated/printed/etc. when I share it with others, and others can crack that password with a click of a button through doing it on this site for e.g. Unlock PDF – Free Online PDF Password Remover , then I think that placing this service on Adobe Acrobat Pro is useless and a waste of money as well as troublesome to institutions and companies that are using Acrobat Pro for their official papers in that patter.
Very disappointing and such a waste of investment on a software with weak encryption services.
I have tried to use LiveCycle for its unique encryption service that could not be unlocked via the aforementioned websites in the above comments but with no avail. Would you mind please helping me out or leading me to an article or a video that can help?
The security is pretty useless, but some people and companies demand it, so taking it out of the product would be bad.
The rules for PDF passwords are public, so that other companies can write PDF viewers and software freely.
The encryption on OPEN passwords is industry standard and hacking software has to use brute force attacks (e.g. dictionaries). All passwords (except those on services which close down automatically) are subject to these attacks.
PERMISSION passwords are a secondary level of protection which depends on PDF software following the rules. You should get a clear warning about this when you set them:
Perhaps you ignored this clear message....