21–30 of 111 posts
Every commenter is jumping in asking “is it correct?” Even if it’s not 100%, if it’s at least reasonably close, it could be a tremendous force-multiplier against obfuscation for someone with some familiarity with roughly what the code is trying to do.
so, ROUGHLY, what is it trying to do?
i would rather ask it to give me the python source of a program capable to deobfuscate THAT string. anything else is just naive, wishfull thinking and a waste of time. you will have to deobfuscate the code manually anyways but at least you got on HN EDIT: OMG... the obfuscated code was generated by chatgpt AND DOESNT EVEN WORK
i would rather ask it to give me the python source of a program capable to deobfuscate THAT string. anything else is just naive, wishfull thinking and a waste of time. you will have to deobfuscate the code manually anyways but at least you got on HN EDIT: OMG... the obfuscated code was generated by chatgpt AND DOESNT EVEN WORK
Are you just now realizing these LLM’s can’t factually determine if what they output is correct?
So, all I've learned is that ChatGPT knows the obfuscated and de-obfuscated versions of code that it itself has generated.
Is it correct though? I’ve been toying around with ChatGPT for a few weeks now and I encountered a few situations in which ChatGPT was like 90% accurate at best. Things like suggesting snippets of configuration files or plugin research. It’s good to get an idea and get started somewhere, but I certainly cannot trust it blindly.
It's just like any other AI system, it returns results as a best effort proposition of accurate with a % confidence that doesn't map well to binary outcomes.
So yes, it can be accurate. But there are scenarios where it must be strict or binary correct, and its not great at that bit.
Is it correct though? I’ve been toying around with ChatGPT for a few weeks now and I encountered a few situations in which ChatGPT was like 90% accurate at best. Things like suggesting snippets of configuration files or plugin research. It’s good to get an idea and get started somewhere, but I certainly cannot trust it blindly.
Don't think so. There's clearly the beginning of a while loop near the top of the obfuscated version. There's no loops at all in the 'de-obfuscated' version.
---
This code uses JavaScript's `eval` function to obfuscate the code by looping over an array of strings and passing them as arguments to `eval` to create a variable. It also uses an anonymous function to obfuscate the code. The code is deobfuscated by replacing the `eval` function and the anonymous function with their respective strings.
Misleading, ChatGPT generated both obfuscated and de-obfuscated code
Is it correct though? I’ve been toying around with ChatGPT for a few weeks now and I encountered a few situations in which ChatGPT was like 90% accurate at best. Things like suggesting snippets of configuration files or plugin research. It’s good to get an idea and get started somewhere, but I certainly cannot trust it blindly.
Define accurate? It's just like any other AI system, it returns results as a best effort proposition of accurate with a % confidence that doesn't map well to binary outcomes. So yes, it can be accurate. But there are scenarios where it must be strict or binary correct, and its not great at that bit.
I’m still excited to use it, but you have to know enough about coding to ensure correctness. It’s no where near possible for a non-coder to build a complicated app with (so far).