logologo
  • How it works
  • Why It Matters
  • Statistics
  • Pricing
  • FAQ
  • API
logologo
  • How it works
  • Why It Matters
  • Statistics
  • Pricing
  • FAQ
  • API
HTPBE?

Structural PDF tamper detection API. Catches edits your KYC stack misses.

Product

  • How It Works
  • Why It Matters
  • Use Cases
  • Pricing

Developers

  • API Reference
  • GitHub/docs
  • Changelogv2.37.1

Resources

  • About
  • Blog
  • Comparisons
  • Legal & Imprint

© 2024–2026 TMI Iurii Rogulia · VAT ID: FI29845875 · Made in Finland 🇫🇮

Status

Algorithm v2.37.1

Tool profile

Acrobat PDFMaker

Acrobat PDFMaker appears on both legitimate first-generation output and downstream re-save flows — context (the other tool on the same document) is what flips the signal.

Back to all statistics
Forensic verdict

Mixed signal

Based on this tool’s share of the HTPBE? corpus.

Modification rate
69%+21pp above baseline
Corpus baseline: 48%
Corpus share
0.21%
Share of all analyzed appearances
Modification rate
69%
+21pp above baseline
Role split
100%C/0%P
Creator vs Producer share of appearances

Corpus profile

How Acrobat PDFMaker shows up in HTPBE? corpus

Acrobat PDFMaker is one of the PDF-handling tools surfaced in the HTPBE? corpus. Acrobat PDFMaker appears predominantly as the original Creator (100% of its occurrences) — i.e. on documents that started life inside Acrobat PDFMaker rather than passing through it as a downstream re-saver.

In the HTPBE? corpus the contextual signal we look for is a producer/creator mismatch: when Acrobat PDFMaker appears as the latest Producer on a document whose Creator was an institutional source (e.g. Adobe PDF Library, Microsoft Word, a banking back-end), the document was rebuilt or re-saved after its original creation. That mismatch is the marker — never the tool itself.

On documents where Acrobat PDFMaker acts as Creator, 69% carry modification markers; on documents where it acts as Producer, 0% do. These are observed rates inside the HTPBE? corpus and should be read as base-rates, not as accusations against Acrobat PDFMaker or its users.

The signal
In the HTPBE? corpus the contextual signal we look for is a producer/creator mismatch: when Acrobat PDFMaker appears as the latest Producer on a document whose Creator was an institutional source (e.g. Adobe PDF Library, Microsoft Word, a banking back-end), the document was rebuilt or re-saved after its original creation. That mismatch is the marker — never the tool itself.

Role in the workflow

How Acrobat PDFMaker shows up in metadata

Every PDF carries a Creator (the application that produced the original document) and a Producer (the engine that wrote the PDF). The same tool can appear in either slot, with very different modification profiles.

CAs Creator · 100%
As Producer · 0%P
CAs Creator
  • Share of appearances
    100%
  • Modification rate
    69%
  • Avg file size
    357 KB
PAs Producer
  • Share of appearances
    0%
  • Modification rate
    0%

How to read this

The Creator slot typically reflects where a document started life. The Producer slot reflects whatever wrote the bytes — and is the field that gets overwritten when a PDF is opened, edited, and saved by a downstream tool.

A higher modification rate as Producer than as Creator usually means the tool is acting as a re-saver on documents that originated elsewhere. A higher rate as Creator points to fragile workflows around the original authoring app.

Name fingerprints

Also goes by

Different version strings and spellings observed for Acrobat PDFMaker in the wild. All are merged into the same canonical profile.

Acrobat PDFMaker 26 for Word43.8%
Acrobat PDFMaker 25 for Word33.3%
Acrobat PDFMaker 11 for Wordille8.3%
Acrobat PDFMaker 24 for Word4.2%
Acrobat PDFMaker 25 for Excel2.1%
Acrobat PDFMaker 22 for Word2.1%
Acrobat PDFMaker 23 для Word2.1%
Acrobat PDFMaker 20 for Word2.1%
Acrobat PDFMaker 19 for Word2.1%

Why variants matter

The same tool publishes itself under 9 different metadata strings — version bumps, locale tags, build IDs. We canonicalize them so the corpus reflects one identity, not noise.

Most common
Acrobat PDFMaker 26 for Word
43.8% of appearances
Variant spread
9 distinct strings
Long-tail share: 56.3%
Observed range
25.05.2015 → 01.07.2026

Distributions

What ships alongside Acrobat PDFMaker

The PDF versions Acrobat PDFMaker writes when acting as Producer, and the other tools that appear in the same documents.

Common Producers when Acrobat PDFMaker is the Creator

Adobe PDF Library writes 77% of these files — that pairing is the Adobe-stack default for many institutional pipelines.

Adobe PDF Library77.1%
Acrobat Distiller18.8%
pdf-lib2.1%
macOS Print to PDF2.1%

Related profiles

Tools you’ll see next to Acrobat PDFMaker

Other tools that frequently share metadata with Acrobat PDFMaker in the same documents. Each card links to its own forensic profile.

P77% co-occurrence
Adobe PDF Library
Corpus share1.6%
Mod rate71%
P19% co-occurrence
Acrobat Distiller
Corpus share1.4%
Mod rate55%
P2% co-occurrence
pdf-lib
Corpus share0.41%
Mod rate88%
P2% co-occurrence
macOS Print to PDF
Corpus share3.5%
Mod rate64%

Long tail

Notable observations

Smaller cuts of the Acrobat PDFMaker corpus — useful context, but treat each row as a single data point rather than a strong signal.

Digitally signed
2%

Of files carry at least one digital signature

Avg pages per document
4.9
Oldest observed
25.05.2015 — about 11 years ago

Secure your workflow

Create your account — API key on signup, free test environment on every plan.
From $15/mo. No sales call. Cancel any time.

Start Free — Close the Structural Fraud GapSee Pricing
Read API Docs →