Cheap way to password protect PDF files

[cbrunny]

Looking for the cheapest way to password protect a pdf document. It can't be done in Adobe Reader which is what we currently have. Is Acrobat the next best option? Anything free that can do this seemingly trivial thing?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

7-zip, password protect the .zip.

 

[John Connor]

Yeah, 7Z. But I would use the self-extracting SFX archive. Also use the encrypt file names option.

 

[John Connor]

 

[cbrunny]

Thanks but in this case that won't fly. The pdfs get distributed to stakeholders and it isn't reasonable to expect each of them to have 7zip or understand how to unzip it.

 

[sweenish]

Which is why they suggested the self-extracting archive.

 

[cbrunny]

...and it won't work in this case.

 

[sweenish]

Not sure what part of self-extracting doesn't make sense.

Are they incapable of double-clicking?

 

[cbrunny]

not sure what part of "it won't work in this case" is so hard to understand either.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The part where it's four clicks instead of two...

 

[smakme7757]

I get what he's after. Password protecting the actual PDF is the best idea in a company/shareholder/stakeholder scenario.

I would buy a single license of Phantom PDF https://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf-editor/

It will password protect with standard formats with unbreakeable encryption that can be opened by all major PDF software packages and of course a hell of alot more.

Fantastic PDf editor, we have it in our enterprise and it's very affordable. $120 i think for a single license. I actually own a copy for private it's that good.

$120 should be doable unless this is some sort of childrens football club or something like that where that budget might be tight. If that is the case password protecting with a selfextracting 7zip might be the cheapest option as mentioned above although it won't be the most "user friendly".

 

[cbrunny]

I get what he's after. Password protecting the actual PDF is the best idea in a company/shareholder/stakeholder scenario.

I would buy a single license of Phantom PDF https://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf-editor/

It will password protect with standard formats with unbreakeable encryption that can be opened by all major PDF software packages and of course a hell of alot more.

Fantastic PDf editor, we have it in our enterprise and it's very affordable. $120 i think for a single license. I actually own a copy for private it's that good.

$120 should be doable unless this is some sort of childrens football club or something like that where that budget might be tight. If that is the case password protecting with a selfextracting 7zip might be the cheapest option as mentioned above although it won't be the most "user friendly".

Thank you! I will take a look at this immediately. Much appreciated!!

 

[corkyg]

Also, take a look at this while you are at it: https://www.pdfprotect.net/

 

[sweenish]

not sure what part of "it won't work in this case" is so hard to understand either.

When the reasons you gave had no bearing on the suggestion, probably.

 

[John Connor]

OP, password protecting a PDF is laughable. It can be broken.

An SFX archive is self-extracting. You double click the file and out pops the bloody PDF.

 

[smakme7757]

OP, password protecting a PDF is laughable. It can be broken.

Modern PDF technology has come a long way. The breakable password protection is long gone in modern PDF software.

As an example try to unlock this password protected file.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1x6XXGS0c0iMWl4M2ptOUJ5V0k

An SFX archive is self-extracting. You double click the file and out pops the bloody PDF.

A lot of people find anything they are unaccustomed to intimidating. People understand what a PDF document is and they understand a simple password pop up box. So its the road of least resistance.

 

[sweenish]

That's fine and all. But your reasoning is also off. PDF tech has nothing to do with it. They just used a better encryption scheme, hopefully something like CBC with AES-256. It was probably something home-baked or weak like ECB using DES.

I'm on OP's case for their garbage reasoning in the thread.

Beside the point, if they have shareholders and stakeholders, they could just buy a single license of whatever that has the capability. It wouldn't be very hard to make the case. Even for a full Reader license.

 

[smakme7757]

That's fine and all. But your reasoning is also off. PDF tech has nothing to do with it. They just used a better encryption scheme, hopefully something like CBC with AES-256. It was probably something home-baked or weak like ECB using DES.

I'm on OP's case for their garbage reasoning in the thread.

Beside the point, if they have shareholders and stakeholders, they could just buy a single license of whatever that has the capability. It wouldn't be very hard to make the case. Even for a full Reader license.

ok I could have said PDF software instead of "PDF tech". It doesn't matter what they have changed though. it's still gone from no security to unbreakable.

Not sure why you're on the OPs case. He asked for a suggestion. You guys offered one up which was both cheap and decent, but it wasn't what the OP was after. I really think your beating a dead horse here. What's to gain ?

 

[lxskllr]

If the op created the document, it could be password protected at pdf creation. LibreOffice does it. Dunno about other suites.

 

[sweenish]

ok I could have said PDF software instead of "PDF tech". It doesn't matter what they have changed though. it's still gone from no security to unbreakable.

Not sure why you're on the OPs case. He asked for a suggestion. You guys offered one up which was both cheap and decent, but it wasn't what the OP was after. I really think your beating a dead horse here. What's to gain ?

It wasn't what they were after, and that's fine, but LIKE I SAID, their reasoning was trash. It had nothing to do with the suggestion, and demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge of what was even suggested.

As in, it did nothing to dissuade that the original solution was not good enough. Had they just said they didn't want to send an executable, or just directly protect the pdf, at least I would have backed off and forgot about this thread long ago. But they didn't.

 

[cbrunny]

That's fine and all. But your reasoning is also off. PDF tech has nothing to do with it. They just used a better encryption scheme, hopefully something like CBC with AES-256. It was probably something home-baked or weak like ECB using DES.

I'm on OP's case for their garbage reasoning in the thread.

Beside the point, if they have shareholders and stakeholders, they could just buy a single license of whatever that has the capability. It wouldn't be very hard to make the case. Even for a full Reader license.

just go away. I don't need to justify anything to you, and quite frankly you're being such a gigantic douche about this that i'm not sure why i'm even spending the time replying.

 

[cbrunny]

If the op created the document, it could be password protected at pdf creation. LibreOffice does it. Dunno about other suites.

We use Office 13 at work. Surprisingly this feature is not part of Powerpoint. I'm not sure if the others have the ability. Saving as a pdf is possible though. We tend to use a ton of charts and images and stuff so Powerpoint can be ideal for designing pdf docs easier that Word in any case.

LibreOffice might have that same functionality, though I admit I'm not really familiar with it in any kind of detail.

 

[sweenish]

just go away. I don't need to justify anything to you, and quite frankly you're being such a gigantic douche about this that i'm not sure why i'm even spending the time replying.

You're right, you don't.

But explaining yourself clearly can go a long way. Like nearly all of my posts in this thread never happening.

If you had actually explained clearly why the self-extracting archive wouldn't have been what you wanted as opposed to giving reasons that were exactly why a self-extracting archive was suggested, this thread would be a lot shorter.

 

[cbrunny]

You're right, you don't.

But explaining yourself clearly can go a long way. Like nearly all of my posts in this thread never happening.

If you had actually explained clearly why the self-extracting archive wouldn't have been what you wanted as opposed to giving reasons that were exactly why a self-extracting archive was suggested, this thread would be a lot shorter.

I could not care less about whether or not you think I've explained myself clearly. Your opinion is completely worthless to me.

 

[sweenish]

Apparently not.

It's not even like I demanded an essay. Just actual reasons that make sense. Too much, I guess.

Hopefully this downplay of the other person's opinion works out for you in the future when you fail to explain something.