Does pdfinfo give any indication of the application used to create the document?

Oracle Documaker PDF Driver
PDF version: 1.3

If it chokes on the Java bit up front, can you extract just the PDF from the file and look at that?

Not sure how to do that but I did just try pdfimages -all which was not useful since it’s a vector PDF. pdfdetach -list shows 0 attachments. It just occurred to me that pdftocairo could be useful as far as a CLI way to neuter the doc and make it useable, but that’s a kind of a lossy meat-grinder option that doesn’t help with analysis.

You might also dig through the PDF a bit using Dider Stevens 's Tools,

Thanks for the tip. I might have to look into that. No readme… I guess this is a /use the source, Luke/ scenario. (edit: found this).

I appreciate all the tips. I might be tempted to dig into some of those options.

Your assertion that the document is malicious without any evidence is what I’m concerned about.

I did not assert malice. I asked questions. I’m open to evidence proving or disproving malice.

At some point you have to decide to trust someone. The comment above gave you reason to trust that the document was in a standard, non-malicious format. But you outright rejected their advice in a hostile tone. You base your hostility on a youtube video.

There was too much uncertainty there to inspire trust. Getoffmylan had no idea why the data was organised as serialised java.

You should read the essay “on trusting trust” and then make a decision on whether you are going to participate in digital society or live under a bridge with a tinfoil hat.

I’ll need a more direct reference because that phrase gives copious references. Do you mean this study? Judging from the abstract:

To what extent should one trust a statement that a program is free of Trojan horses? Perhaps it is more important to trust the people who wrote the software.

I seem to have received software pretending to be a document. Trust would naturally not be a sensible reaction to that. In the infosec discipline we would be incompetent fools to loosely trust whatever comes at us. We make it a point to avoid trust and when trust cannot be avoided we seek justfiication for trust. We have a zero-trust principle. We also have the rule of leaste privilige which means not to extend trust/permissions where it’s not necessary for the mission. Why would I trust a PDF when I can take steps to access the PDF in a way that does not need excessive trust?

The masses (security naive folks) operate in the reverse-- they trust by default and look for reasons to distrust. That’s not wise.

In Canada, and elsewhere, insurance companies know everything about you before you even apply, and it’s likely true elsewhere too.

When you move, how do they find out if you don’t tell them? Tracking would be one way.

Privacy is about control. When you call it paranoia, the concept of agency has escaped you. If you have privacy, you can choose what you disclose. What would be good rationale for giving up control?

Even if they don’t have personally identifiable information, you’ll be in a data bucket with your neighbours, with risk profiles based on neighbourhood, items being insuring, claim rates for people with similar profiles, etc. Very likely every interaction you have with them has been going into a LLM even prior to the advent of ChatGPT, and they will have scored those interactions against a model.

If we assume that’s true, what do you gain by giving them more solid data to reinforce surreptitious snooping? You can’t control everything but It’s not in your interest to sacrifice control for nothing.

But what you will end up doing instead is triggering fraudulent behaviour flags. There’s something called “address fraud”, where people go out of their way to disguise their location, because some lower risk address has better rates or whatever.

Indeed for some types of insurance policies the insurer has a legitimate need to know where you reside. But that’s the insurer’s problem. This does not rationalize a consumer who recklessly feeds surreptitious surveillance. Street wise consumers protect themselves of surveillance. Of course they can (and should) disclose their new address if they move via proper channels.

Why? Because someone might take a vacation somewhere and interact from another state. How long is a vacation? It’s for the consumer to declare where they intend to live, e.g. via “declaration of domicile”. Insurance companies will harrass people if their intel has an inconsistency. Where is that trust you were talking about? There is no reciprocity here.

When you do everything you can to scrub your location, this itself is a signal that you are operating as a highly paranoid individual and that might put you in a bucket.

Sure, you could end up in that bucket if you are in a strong minority of street wise consumers. If the insurer wants to waste their time chasing false positives, the time waste is on them. I would rather laugh at that than join the street unwise club that makes the street wise consumers stand out more.

Don’t Canadian insurance companies want to know where their customers are? Or are the Canadian privacy safeguards good on this?

In the US, Europe (despite the GDPR), and other places, banks and insurance companies snoop on their customers to track their whereabouts as a normal common way of doing business. They insert surreptitious tracker pixels in email to not only track the fact that you read their msg but also when you read the msg and your IP (which gives whereabouts). If they suspect you are not where they expect you to be, they take action. They modify your policy. It’s perfectly legal in the US to use sneaky underhanded tracking techniques rather than the transparent mechanism described in RFC 2298. If your suppliers are using RFC 2298 and not involuntary tracking mechanisms, lucky you.

You’re kind of freaking out about nothing.

I highly recommend Youtube video l6eaiBIQH8k, if you can track it down. You seem to have no general idea about PDF security problems.

And I’m not sure why an application would output a pdf this way. But there’s nothing harmful going on.

If you can’t explain it, then you don’t understand it. Thus you don’t have answers.

It’s a bad practice to just open a PDF you did not produce without safeguards. Shame on me for doing it… I got sloppy but it won’t happen again.

deleted by creator

!smartphone_required@lemmy.sdf.org captures these kinds of cases. @FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee, if you know of any situations where your prof faced difficulty for not having a smartphone, consider posting about it there.

I figured the power consumption of multiple parallel decodings would increase but it would be negligable if limited to occur during channel browsing. If you settle on a signal for 2 min, it could revert to 1 channel.

A more crude improvement would be trivial: simply continue playing the previous buffer during the 3 second gap, but update the display instantly to show the user that their command was received and acted on. The 3 second gap could also be a fade-out to give an audible signal that the channel change command is in motion. The linux app “Clementine” does some of this. When you click the stop button, it does not stop the music instantly but does a fade out.

DJs sometimes have to switch to something else quickly with no time to beat match. It’s not a good situation but their method of choice seems to be a rapid cross-fade, as opposed to a sharp and sudden discrete switch. That slight smoothness helps. With a small buffer the two channels could even slow one channel and speed up the other to do an automatic beat match and cross-fade a bit more smoothly. I would not be surprised if there were some FOSS libs that already provide this sort of thing.

(edit) I should note as well that there is one station that has a very low level so you have to double the volume to match any other station. A device that fades during transitions could normalize the level differences without the user even knowing the differences are there.