pdfcraft/crates/engine
Jeremy Yao 759cfa65f4
Security: fix three audit findings in redaction and signature validation (#1631)
* M8: redaction unlinks removed images and forms from inherited and shared resources

Apply Redactions and Remove Hidden Information give a rewritten page its own
pruned /Resources, but the dictionary the page drew through before could still
name the image or form that was removed:

- a /Resources inherited from a /Pages node;
- one resource dictionary object shared by several pages;
- the page's own dictionary, when a form without /Resources drew the image
  through it.

A full-rewrite save keeps whatever is still referenced, so the removed image
samples and form text stayed in the saved file while the operation reported
success. Per-page resources (the case fixed in #1099) were not affected.

The interpreter now records the original object behind every XObject it drops
or replaces. After the page loop, each page-tree resource dictionary that still
names one loses that entry unless a page drawing through that dictionary still
draws the name (the same image on another page, or again outside a mark). A
dictionary that loses an entry is replaced by a private copy on its node, so a
dictionary object shared with other nodes is left alone for them. If a page's
use of a name cannot be told (unreadable content, a form that will not decode),
the operation fails closed.

Tests: redacted_xobjects_do_not_survive_through_inherited_or_shared_resources,
an_image_another_page_still_draws_through_the_same_resources_is_kept,
an_image_a_form_drew_through_the_pages_resources_does_not_survive,
a_hidden_layers_image_does_not_survive_through_inherited_resources.

Not covered here: originals named by a form XObject's own /Resources, by an
annotation appearance or by a pattern.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* M9: a cross-reference entry the reader sets aside is never an unchanged signed object

The reader that judges post-signing changes and the renderer that draws the
page resolve some cross-reference entries differently. A revision appended
after signing could redefine a page's content stream and give the object an
entry the reader sets aside while the renderer follows it:

- an in-use entry at offset 0 (the reader skips it; the renderer fails to read
  the object there, rebuilds its index and takes the last definition);
- a second entry for the same object in one section (the reader keeps the
  first, the renderer the last).

The classifier compared the signed object with itself, found nothing changed
and reported the signature Valid while the page showed the new content.

pdfcraft-cos now records the entries it does not take at face value
(Document::xref_oddities: offset-0 in-use entries other than object 0,
duplicate entries that differ, reserved cross-reference stream types, and a
hybrid /XRefStm entry that disagrees with the table), and can say whether an
entry locates the object itself (Document::xref_entry_is_exact). What it
resolves is unchanged.

classify_changes treats any such entry added after the signed revision as a
change that is never permitted (page content when the object was a signed page
or its content, other changes otherwise). An object whose content compares
equal at a new place is unchanged only when its entry is exact: where the
reader had to search for the object, another reader may arrive elsewhere.

Tests: a_cross_reference_entry_the_reader_sets_aside_does_not_hide_new_page_content,
a_cross_reference_entry_that_misses_its_object_is_not_an_unchanged_object,
cross_reference_entries_that_are_set_aside_are_recorded,
an_entry_that_misses_its_object_is_found_by_searching_but_is_not_exact.

This closes the two demonstrated triggers and their near variants. It does not
prove that the two parsers agree on every file: other differences in what each
tolerates may remain.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

* M8: Apply Redactions is refused when the page still shows text under a mark

Redaction decides what lies under a mark from the positions its own
interpreter computes, and its verify pass reuses them. Where those differ from
the renderer's, a mark drawn over the text as displayed lies over glyphs the
interpreter places elsewhere, or does not see at all: they stayed in the file
and the operation reported success.

The case the test pins: a font and size set through an ExtGState /Font entry
(`gs`), which the renderer honours and the interpreter does not model. The same
kind of gap was observed for a font a form XObject takes from its caller, for
some predefined CMaps and for a rotated Type 3 font matrix. The standard-14
width error that first showed it is fixed at its root by d0d1ad81.

The engine now asks the renderer, which is what the user saw when placing the
marks. After redaction runs, the result is written as a save would write it
(without the marks' own overlay), its text is extracted, and a glyph still at
least half inside a mark fails the edit with the existing "could not be
verified" error. The edit runs on a copy, so the document is unchanged. A page
whose text cannot be read back fails the same way.

This makes such mismatches fail closed; it does not make those documents
redactable. Teaching the interpreter each of them is separate work.

Test: redaction_is_refused_when_the_page_still_shows_text_under_a_mark (the
line whose font is set by `gs` is refused and left unchanged; the same line set
with `Tf` is redacted).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

---------

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-10-13 00:14:40 -04:00
..
src Security: fix three audit findings in redaction and signature validation (#1631) 2026-10-13 00:14:40 -04:00
tests M10: edit OCR text on scanned pages so the change shows (#1397) 2026-10-12 08:16:42 -04:00
Cargo.toml Add faux-redaction audit (paint-order and colour-aware, fail-closed) (#110) 2026-10-11 14:32:33 -04:00
README.md Preserve source fonts in text editing and resize clipped artwork (#1116) 2026-10-11 20:27:55 -04:00

README.md

pdfcraft-engine

The façade every frontend talks to. It holds the open documents, their edit history and the tool catalogue; frontends never reach past it into the parsing, rendering or editing crates.

  • Layer: L6. It depends on most of L1–L4 and on nothing above itself. No UI toolkit — egui, winit, eframe and rfd are forbidden below L7, and xtask layers enforces it.
  • The crate denies unwrap/expect/panic!/todo!. Entry points that run untrusted-document code keep a last-resort catch_unwind guard so an escaped panic becomes an error and the user keeps their document.

Two frontends exist on top of it today: pdfcraft-ui-egui (desktop and web) and pdfcraft-automation (headless tools, the CLI and MCP). Anything one can do, the other must be able to do — see AGENTS.md §3.

The editing model

Each open document holds a pdfcraft_cos::Document: the object graph plus a copy-on-write overlay.

  1. An edit runs on a clone. On success the previous state is pushed onto the undo stack. Clones share all unchanged data, so a snapshot is cheap — this is what makes 100 levels of undo affordable on a 200 MB file.
  2. After every edit the working file is produced by an incremental write: the original bytes plus one appended revision.
  3. The view is refreshed from those bytes, so what you see is exactly what Save will write.
  4. Saving rebases onto the written bytes, so the next save appends only new edits.

Consequences worth preserving: the original bytes of an opened file are never rewritten in place; a full rewrite happens only where it must (redaction, PDF/A conversion, print imposition, a changed password); and unknown data survives a round trip because nothing is reconstructed that wasn't understood.

API

let mut s = Session::new();
let id = s.open("report.pdf", Some(path), bytes, None)?;   // -> DocId

s.apply(id, Edit::RotatePages { pages: vec![0], degrees: 90 })?;
let label = s.undo(id)?;                                    // "Rotate pages"
s.redo(id)?;

let doc = s.get(id).ok_or("gone")?;                         // &Document: queries, never edits
doc.can_undo(); doc.editable(); doc.allows_printing();
doc.text_blocks(page); doc.page_boxes(page); doc.security_summary();

let bytes = s.save_bytes(id)?;        // incremental: keeps signatures over earlier revisions valid
let bytes = s.save_full_bytes(id)?;   // full rewrite, garbage-collected
s.mark_saved(id, bytes.clone(), path)?;

Edit is one enum of 75 variants — every undoable change in the product, from RotatePages to AddAnnotation, SetFieldValue, ApplyRedactions and AddWatermark. Adding a feature means adding a variant and handling it in apply, which is what keeps undo, the dirty flag, autosave and the automation tools consistent for free.

Session also owns the operations that produce a new document rather than editing one: create_blank, create_from_images, create_from_text, combine, extract, split, split_by_size, reduced_bytes, optimized_bytes, print_pdf, export_data, and the signing family (sign, sign_with_timestamp, timestamp_document, embed_ltv).

Modules

Module What it holds
commands The command registry: id, label, menu, shortcut, and a Needs precondition encoding document security. Menus, the ⌘K palette, shortcuts and the control channel all read it, so every surface agrees on what exists and when it is enabled
catalog Acrobat's "All tools" information architecture as data — groups, sections, icons, hues, and an Availability of Ready, Planned(milestone) or Provider. The UI renders what is not built yet, honestly
actions PDF action dispatch (go-to, URI, named, set-layer-state, JavaScript)
links Link creation, properties, and finding URLs in page text
js The bridge to pdfcraft-js. forms never depends on js directly; the engine injects it, so a build without JavaScript is possible
xfa, ocr, compare, export Façades over the L3/L4 crates of the same names

Not done here

  • Rendering is still borrowed. pdfcraft-render wraps hayro and inspects through lopdf (ADR-0004). The engine only sees inspect() -> DocInfo, RenderPool and text::PageText, and that API stays frozen while M2 replaces what is behind it.
  • Performance budgets (misc.performance-budgets) are not set or enforced.
  • Some shipped features are still reachable only from the UI, not through an automation tool; cargo xtask parity lists them; closing that gap is tracked in the execution plan (D4).

doc.text_edit_preview(page, block) prepares a read-only page background with the selected paragraph’s glyphs removed, preserving text positioning, images and colours. It shares the working document’s render configuration and never enters the undo history.