News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:JSFuck (2012) by stavros on Sunday September 26, 2021 @09:24AM (#28660690)
> That's the example from the site. "console.log('Hello world')" gets deobfuscated to "console[a(482)]("Hello World!");"

That does not look deobfuscated to me.

Re:JSFuck (2012) by ByteJockey on Sunday September 26, 2021 @11:16AM (#28661512)
Anyone familiar with JS is going to have some really good guesses at what a(482) is in this case.

And, even if you don't, you can always call a(482)

Re:JSFuck (2012) by stavros on Sunday September 26, 2021 @11:19AM (#28661535)
Yes, but "obfuscated" means "To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand". That's obfuscated, not deobfuscated.
Re:JSFuck (2012) by AlexAndScripts on Monday September 27, 2021 @08:26AM (#28669788)
Is that difficult? Harder, but still quite easy.
Re:JSFuck (2012) by stavros on Monday September 27, 2021 @08:33AM (#28669862)
My point was that the GP seems to have mixed the words "obfuscate" and "deobfuscate".
Re:JSFuck (2012) by zemnmez on Monday September 27, 2021 @05:58PM (#28676544)
To clarify, that's what happens once you pass it through the obfuscation and THEN closure compiler. If you click the link you will see the obfuscation is much more complex
Re:JSFuck (2012) by stavros on Monday September 27, 2021 @05:59PM (#28676549)
Oh, then I misunderstood and everyone should ignore this whole thread :P