Log of #ghostscript at irc.freenode.net.

Search:
 <<<Back 1 day (to 2019/09/30)Fwd 1 day (to 2019/10/02) >>>20191001 
sebras du skrev "I dislike "Allow for .zip/.tar archive containing a ridiculous amount of files.""12:19.18 
  I'm not supposed to be here now, sorry. :)12:19.42 
kens was wondering what that was about12:19.52 
fluffypony hmmmmm18:04.49 
  so I'm trying to overwrite the Producer metadata in a PDF -> PDF/A conversion so as not to leak the version of GhostScript we're using18:05.28 
  which I apparently can do via a pdfmark file18:05.42 
  not sure if I'm supposed to wrap the /Producer string in inverted commas or not18:06.49 
  pdfmark is the worst file format, why do they not have a closing bracket18:07.00 
  lol18:07.00 
  ohhhhhh18:09.40 
  strings are wrapped in brackets because of course they are18:09.46 
kens fluffypony: the '[' isn't a bracket, its a mark in PostScript terminology, and yes, string delimters in PostScript are ()18:32.00 
fluffypony my OCD says it's a bracket :-P18:32.25 
kens And I've recently disabled the ability to overwrite Producer:18:32.32 
  http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=commit;h=f03bac8ec2dabfff5583bf6afdd2b77f1885f8ef18:32.32 
fluffypony oh interesting18:32.38 
  could you at least allow it to set the producer without leaking the version?18:33.13 
kens No, what wold be the point ?18:33.26 
  If someone sends me a PDF file I want ot know if it was created by version 9.28 or version 8.7018:33.45 
  Because if its 8.70 I'm going to tell them to upgrade and try again18:33.57 
fluffypony true18:34.03 
kens Why does the version number worry you ?18:34.31 
fluffypony I was thinking of an option to prevent leaking the version so that we don't give attackers more info than they need18:35.08 
  so the scenario is an attacker knows we're running 9.27, for instance18:35.16 
  and then they use an 0-day or something that -dSAFER doesn't catch to touch the filesystem18:35.33 
kens Well they could just try it and see, or write a PostScrip tprogram which renders the Product string to the PDF file18:36.00 
  Its trivial to get the Product out if you use PostScript18:36.10 
  And that includes the version number of course18:36.19 
fluffypony that's true18:36.20 
  so we were initially going PDF -> PostScript -> PDF/A18:36.28 
  but then I was told that it broke some transparent images18:36.35 
kens Well, don't do the middle step :-)18:36.39 
fluffypony insert shrug emoji18:36.43 
kens Yes, it wll totally break transparency18:36.47 
fluffypony the commercial version will still allow us to override the Producer pdfmark, right?18:37.21 
kens PostScript doesn't support PDF transparency model, so any transparenct content in the PDF will be rendered to an image18:37.25 
  I've made an exception for commercial custoemrs yes18:37.36 
  Because if they produce PDF files I want their customer to go to them for support, not me :-)18:37.52 
fluffypony ok I'll use that to motivate for a commercial license - is there any indication of costs online, or is it a "speak to a consultant" model?18:37.59 
kens I'm afraid all I can tell you is that every licence is individually negotiated. I'm just an engineer, I stay away from commercial stuff18:38.32 
fluffypony ok perfect, thanks for all the input :)18:38.44 
  one last question, if I may18:38.47 
kens Go on18:38.50 
fluffypony is it possible to pass the pdfmark content on the command line rather than linking to a pdfmark file?18:38.58 
kens Yes18:39.05 
  Use -c to introduce PostScript and -f to stop it18:39.13 
  Its in Use.htm IIRC18:39.20 
fluffypony tks, will check18:39.38 
kens actually I think any '-' will stop PostScript, but -f is safe18:39.44 
fluffypony perfect18:40.19 
kens Yeah under Command line options18:40.25 
  In Use.htm18:40.34 
 <<<Back 1 day (to 2019/09/30)Forward 1 day (to 2019/10/02)>>> 
ghostscript.com #mupdf
Search: