JSFuck – Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
1–10 of 76 posts
Re: JSFuck – Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
#2While funny looking, what is the ingenuity behind it?
Re: JSFuck – Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
#3How are the performance impacts?
Re: JSFuck – Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
#4ihihihih...
neat
how it deals with gzip?
Re: JSFuck – Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
#5While funny looking, what is the ingenuity behind it?
It means it can bypass any automatic "javascript filters" which try and filter out malicious js code while allowing legitimate code.
Re: JSFuck – Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
#6While funny looking, what is the ingenuity behind it?
Many people here on HN never took compsci in school, so strictly speaking it's just a translator - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translator_(computing) .
It's more a showoff of a js idiosyncrasy - they found an ugly looking subset of characters that is Turing complete and wrote a translator to it.
If you're new to the concept of Turing tarpits, then this should blow your mind. On the other hand, this is a sufficiently advanced bit of CS thinking that no future employer should question the author's basic competency. I certainly have never written a translator.
Re: JSFuck – Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
#7IE 10 gives me "alertr1(" clicking on the "run this" link (eval source deactivated).
But interesting nevertheless!
Re: JSFuck – Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
#8ihihihih... neat how it deals with gzip?
I just tried it with ZIP format using WinRAR. "alert(1)" encoded and zipped ("best" compression) is 216 bytes vs. "alert(1)" zipped is 162 bytes.
Re: JSFuck – Write any JavaScript with 6 Characters: []()!+
#9Seems like it would be interesting to use as a cheap form of JS obfuscation.