• sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    5 months ago

    PDFs have embedded digital signatures, so the signing tool needs to support the proprietary format.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        If it was valid, do you really think people would be talking about it being a problem here? Please use your head a little.

        Also, two entitely different meanings of the word signing being used here. Signing as in signing a bill vs. Cryptographic signing. Adobe has some weird “halfway” thing that’s more than painting the sig on the image, but isn’t gpg.

        Hooray for proprietary shit becoming accepted for legal use! Yuck.

        • JargonWagon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          When I worked with a lot of legal documents, we just used DocuSign mostly. Have you attempted that on Linux? Not sure what it’s like these days, also curious if it’s because it’s a web application if it works the same.

      • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Well, it uses existing PKI/CAs (ie, same as your browser), which I’m not sure GPG supports? I might be wrong.

        You could certainly use GPG, but it’s not what others will be looking for. Depends on your use case, I guess.