Trustworthy Chrome Extensions, by default

Re:Trustworthy Chrome Extensions, by default by Ajedi32 on Monday October 01, 2018 @04:05PM (#18116313)

The difference is whether your goal is to make the code impossible to reverse engineer, or if you're just trying to reduce the size or improve the performance of the final deliverable.

The blog post explicitly calls out all of the following techniques as acceptable, for example:

> * Removal of whitespace, newlines, code comments, and block delimiters

> * Shortening of variable and function names

> * Collapsing the number of JavaScript files

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trustworthy Chrome Extensions, by default by tyingq on Monday October 01, 2018 @07:20PM (#18117619)

I wonder what the policy will be when WASM gets direct DOM access. Maybe you have to include source maps at that point?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trustworthy Chrome Extensions, by default by Ajedi32 on Monday October 01, 2018 @10:50PM (#18118489)

Related question: can source maps be manipulated to hide malicious code? Source maps weren't really designed with an adversarial threat model in mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Trustworthy Chrome Extensions, by default by seanwilson on Monday October 01, 2018 @04:23PM (#18116502)

I read the post but seeing as the penalty for not following the guidelines is your extension being removed from the store and not all minifiers work the same way I thought some clarification would help.

[ Parent | on HN ]