<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Crypto on VisorCraft News</title><link>https://www.visorcraft.com/news/tags/crypto/</link><description>Recent content in Crypto on VisorCraft News</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-US</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:05:00 -0500</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.visorcraft.com/news/tags/crypto/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>underskrift: PAdES B-LTA Signatures in Pure Rust</title><link>https://www.visorcraft.com/news/2026/08/underskrift-pades-signatures-in-pure-rust/</link><pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:05:00 -0500</pubDate><guid>https://www.visorcraft.com/news/2026/08/underskrift-pades-signatures-in-pure-rust/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Signing bytes is a solved problem, and has been for decades, so if all you want is a CMS blob over a hash, any crypto toolkit from the last twenty years will do it in an afternoon, which is exactly why the interesting question in PDF signing is never the cryptography, it is everything around the cryptography: the signature has to ride inside a file format from 1993 without disturbing a single byte that was already there, it has to keep verifying after the certificate that made it has expired, and it has to convince a reader written by somebody else, on a different continent, in a different decade, that the document is exactly what it claims to be.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>