21–25 of 25 posts
This only serves to illustrate why relying on obfuscation to protect you via security-through-obscurity is ridiculous. Commercial Javascript libraries with DRM should take note.
I think you're confusing JS minification with obfuscation. Minified code looks obfuscated, sure, but it's not done to deter "hacking", just to make the code smaller.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're confusing JS minification with obfuscation. Minified code looks obfuscated, sure, but it's not done to deter "hacking", just to make the code smaller.
The code in the challenge isn't even minified, it's just really minimally obfuscated. So, no confusion here.
There are no mainstream examples of such libraries. You're likely confusing minified libraries for having an intent to obfuscate, or talking out your ass.
One or the other.
> function decrypt(a){return "a";} notAdmin a "Login complete, and notAdmin is Admin." Reminds me of when I made a login-form in flash, that simply redirected the browser to "hiddenLoggedIn.html". To be fair I was around 13.
Bah, and I spent the 60 seconds "decrypting" notAdmin's password ;) Woops, you got him there! (teehee)
In hindsight we could've just called decrypt from the console.
> decrypt("dllkhGlgME") "woopsGotME"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, just don't make them as shitty as this one before going public.
The creator of this could probably use some more constructive feedback than "don't make it shitty."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The code in the challenge isn't even minified, it's just really minimally obfuscated. So, no confusion here.
I'm not talking about the challenge, but those supposed commercial JS libraries with DRM that you're advising "should take notice". There are no mainstream examples of such libraries. You're likely confusing minified libraries for having an intent to obfuscate, or talking out your ass. One or the other.