logologo
  • How it works
  • Why It Matters
  • Statistics
  • Pricing
  • API
logologo
  • How it works
  • Why It Matters
  • Statistics
  • Pricing
  • 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
  • Changelogv2.23.1

Resources

  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Comparisons
  • Legal & Imprint

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

Status

Algorithm v2.23.1

Tool profile

CrawfordTech

CrawfordTech 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 67 appearances across the HTPBE? corpus.

Modification rate
16%-32pp below baseline
Corpus baseline: 48%
Total appearances
67
0.32% of corpus
Modification rate
16%
-32pp below baseline
Role split
0%C/100%P
Creator vs Producer share of appearances

Corpus profile

How CrawfordTech shows up in HTPBE? corpus

CrawfordTech is one of the PDF-handling tools surfaced in the HTPBE? corpus. CrawfordTech appears predominantly as the Producer (100% of its occurrences) — i.e. on documents whose original Creator was a different application and that subsequently passed through CrawfordTech on the way out.

In the HTPBE? corpus the contextual signal we look for is a producer/creator mismatch: when CrawfordTech 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 CrawfordTech acts as Creator, 0% carry modification markers; on documents where it acts as Producer, 16% do. These are observed rates inside the HTPBE? corpus and should be read as base-rates, not as accusations against CrawfordTech or its users.

The signal
In the HTPBE? corpus the contextual signal we look for is a producer/creator mismatch: when CrawfordTech 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 CrawfordTech 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 · 0%
As Producer · 100%P
CAs Creator
  • Usage
    0
  • Modification rate
    0%
PAs Producer
  • Usage
    67
  • Modification rate
    16%
  • Avg file size
    127 KB

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 CrawfordTech in the wild. All are merged into the same canonical profile.

CrawfordTech PDF Driver Version 4.3 64 Bit Build ID 5239 on May 15, 2016 at 20:01:3382.1%
CrawfordTech PDF/UA Driver Version 5.8 64 Bit Build ID 8412 on June 24, 2025 at 20:00:286.0%
CrawfordTech PDF Driver Version 5.1 64 Bit Build ID 7361 on March 09, 2022 at 20:00:304.5%
CrawfordTech PDF/UA Driver Version 5.8 64 Bit Build ID 8414 on June 26, 2025 at 20:00:263.0%
CrawfordTech PDF/UA Driver Version 5.3 64 Bit Build ID 7763 on April 17, 2023 at 20:00:243.0%
CrawfordTech PDF Driver Version 5.6 64 Bit Build ID 8152 on July 04, 2024 at 20:00:231.5%

Why variants matter

The same tool publishes itself under 6 different metadata strings — version bumps, locale tags, build IDs. We canonicalize them so the corpus reflects one identity, not noise.

Most common
CrawfordTech PDF Driver Version 4.3 64 Bit Build ID 5239 on May 15, 2016 at 20:01:33
82.1% of appearances
Variant spread
6 distinct strings
Long-tail share: 17.9%
Observed range
1 Mar 2025 → 9 May 2026

Distributions

What ships alongside CrawfordTech

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

PDF versions written

Most output is PDF 1.7 (94% of files where CrawfordTech is the Producer).

PDF 1.793.8%
PDF 1.63.1%
PDF 1.23.1%

Common Creators when CrawfordTech is the Producer

AFP Print Application sits upstream in 84% of cases — read this row as “what kinds of documents end up routed through CrawfordTech.”

AFP Print Application83.6%
PRO HLCAPI7.5%
Scanner Xerox6.0%
Barclays3.0%

Related profiles

Tools you’ll see next to CrawfordTech

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

C84% co-occurrence
AFP Print Application
Appearances56
Mod rate5%
C7% co-occurrence
PRO HLCAPI
Appearances11
Mod rate45%
C6% co-occurrence
Scanner Xerox
Appearances267
Mod rate2%
C3% co-occurrence
Barclays
Appearances2
Mod rate100%

Long tail

Notable observations

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

Pages parsed
314
Oldest observed
1 Mar 2025 — about 1 year 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 →