Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly
by maeln on Friday December 06, 2019 @11:50AM
(#21723554)
WASM is a binary and a text format. You can turn any WASM binary to the text format and have a readable version of the blob. Firefox can automatically show you the text version of a WASM blob.
So no, there is no difference with a minified JS. Just because there are in a text format don't make them any more easy to reverse engineer.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly
by strictnein on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:19PM
(#21723871)
Unless I'm completely missing something the "text version" you're talking about is just WASM and there's quite a difference between that and minified JS.
ex:
end $label121
get_local $var7
get_local $var9
call $func3444
get_local $var7
call $func1500
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly
by coolreader18 on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:30PM
(#21723994)
How is that any more readable than deobfuscated js?
func1500(func3444(var7, var9), var7)
gw(kl(s,i),s)Yes this is what I am talking about. Once you know the instruction, I fail to see how it is more difficult to understand than javascript.
That's like saying x86_64 assembly is as easy to understand as C. High level languages exist to make code easier to understand.
wasm is higher-level than x86 (or any other native) assembly.
Re:W3C recommends WebAssembly
by strictnein on Friday December 06, 2019 @12:29PM
(#21723987)
That certainly is a take.
There is a difference in degree, though. Unminified JS is usually easier to read than wasm text, in general.
One practical factor: I often debug wasm files by compiling them to JS first.
At least wasm has structured control flow, which helps a lot. I wish wasm had even more readability features, personally.