Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to make a JavaScript application that's not open source, and thus I wish to learn how to can obfuscate my JS code? Is this possible?
Obfuscation:
Try YUI Compressor. It's a very popular tool, built, enhanced and maintained by the Yahoo UI team.
You may also use:
Google Closure Compiler
UglifyJS
UPDATE: This question was originally asked on 2008, and The mentioned technologies are deprecated. you can use:
terser - more information in web.dev.
Private String Data:
Keeping string values private is a different concern, and obfuscation won't really be of much benefit. Of course, by packaging up your source into a garbled, minified mess, you have a light version of security through obscurity. Most of the time, it's your user who is viewing the source, and the string values on the client are intended for their use, so that sort of private string value isn't often necessary.
If you really had a value that you never wanted a user to see, you would have a couple of options. First, you could do some kind of encryption, which is decrypted at page load. That would probably be one of the most secure options, but also a lot of work which may be unnecessary. You could probably base64 encode some string values, and that would be easier.. but someone who really wanted those string values could easily decode them. Encryption is the only way to truly prevent anyone from accessing your data, and most people find that to be more security than they need.
Sidenote:
Obfuscation in Javascript has been known to cause some bugs. The obfuscators are getting a little better about it, but many outfits decide that they see enough benefit from minifying and gzipping, and the added savings of obfuscation isn't always worth the trouble. If you're trying to protect your source, maybe you'll decide that it's worth your while, just to make your code harder to read. JSMin is a good alternative.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Google's Closure Compiler. It doesn't just minify/compress, it analyzes to find and remove unused code, and rewrites for maximum minification. It can also do type checking and will warn about syntax errors.
JQuery recently switched from YUI Compresser to Closure Compiler, and saw a "solid improvement"
Obfuscation can never really work. For anyone who really wants to get at your code, it's just a speed bump. Worse, it keeps your users from fixing bugs (and shipping the fixes back to you), and makes it harder for you to diagnose problems in the field. Its a waste of your time and money.
Talk to a lawyer about intellectual property law and what your legal options are. "Open Source" does not mean "people can read the source". Instead, Open Source is a particular licensing model granting permission to freely use and modify your code. If you don't grant such a license then people copying your code are in violation and (in most of the world) you have legal options to stop them.
The only way you can really protect your code is to not ship it. Move the important code server-side and have your public Javascript code do Ajax calls to it.
See my full answer about obfuscators here.
You can obfuscate the javascript source all you want, but it will always be reverse-engineerable just by virtue of requiring all the source code to actually run on the client machine... the best option I can think of is having all your processing done with server-side code, and all the client code javascript does is send requests for processing to the server itself. Otherwise, anyone will always be able to keep track of all operations that the code is doing.
Someone mentioned base64 to keep strings safe. This is a terrible idea. Base64 is immediately recognizable by the types of people who would want to reverse engineer your code. The first thing they'll do is unencode it and see what it is.
There are a number of JavaScript obfuscation tools that are freely available; however, I think it's important to note that it is difficult to obfuscate JavaScript to the point where it cannot be reverse-engineered.
To that end, there are several options that I've used to some degree overtime:
YUI Compressor. Yahoo!'s JavaScript compressor does a good job of condensing the code that will improve its load time. There is a small level of obfuscation that works relatively well. Essentially, Compressor will change function names, remove white space, and modify local variables. This is what I use most often. This is an open-source Java-based tool.
JSMin is a tool written by Douglas Crockford that seeks to minify your JavaScript source. In Crockford's own words, "JSMin does not obfuscate, but it does uglify." It's primary goal is to minify the size of your source for faster loading in browsers.
Free JavaScript Obfuscator. This is a web-based tool that attempts to obfuscate your code by actually encoding it. I think that the trade-offs of its form of encoding (or obfuscation) could come at the cost of filesize; however, that's a matter of personal preference.
What i would do:
A. Troll the hacker!
This is will be in the second part my fake/obfuscated secret javascript code LAUNCHER.
The one you see in the source code.
What does this code?
loads the real code
sets a custom header
posts a custom variable
var ajax=function(a,b,d,c,e,f){
e=new FormData();
for(f in d){e.append(f,d[f]);};
c=new XMLHttpRequest();
c.open('POST',a);
c.setRequestHeader("Troll1","lol");
c.onload=b;
c.send(e);
};
window.onload=function(){
ajax('Troll.php',function(){
(new Function(atob(this.response)))()
},{'Troll2':'lol'});
}
B. Obfuscate the code a little
What is that?
thats the same code as above in base64
this is not the SECRET javascript code
(new Function(atob('dmFyIGFqYXg9ZnVuY3Rpb24oYSxiLGQsYyxlLGYpe2U9bmV3IEZvcm1EYXRhKCk7Zm9yKGYgaW4gZCl7ZS5hcHBlbmQoZixkW2ZdKTt9O2M9bmV3IFhNTEh0dHBSZXF1ZXN0KCk7Yy5vcGVuKCdQT1NUJyxhKTtjLnNldFJlcXVlc3RIZWFkZXIoIlRyb2xsMSIsImxvbCIpO2Mub25sb2FkPWI7Yy5zZW5kKGUpO307d2luZG93Lm9ubG9hZD1mdW5jdGlvbigpe2FqYXgoJ1Ryb2xsLnBocCcsZnVuY3Rpb24oKXsgKG5ldyBGdW5jdGlvbihhdG9iKHRoaXMucmVzcG9uc2UpKSkoKX0seydUcm9sbDInOidsb2wnfSk7fQ==')))()
C Create a hard to display php file with the real code inside
What does this php code?
Checks for the right referrer (domain/dir/code of your launcher)
Checks for the custom HEADER
Checks for the custom POST variable
If everything is ok it will show you the right code else a fake code or ban ip, close page.. whatever.
<?php
$t1=apache_request_headers();
if(base64_encode($_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'])=='aHR0cDovL2hlcmUuaXMvbXkvbGF1bmNoZXIuaHRtbA=='&&$_POST['Troll2']=='lol'&&$t1['Troll1']='lol'){
echo 'ZG9jdW1lbnQuYm9keS5hcHBlbmRDaGlsZChkb2N1bWVudC5jcmVhdGVFbGVtZW50KCdkaXYnKSkuaW5uZXJUZXh0PSdBd2Vzb21lJzsNCg==';//here is the SECRET javascript code
}else{
echo 'd2luZG93Lm9wZW4oJycsICdfc2VsZicsICcnKTt3aW5kb3cuY2xvc2UoKTs=';
};
?>
base64 referrer = http://here.is/my/launcher.html
SECRET javascript = document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('div')).innerText='Awesome';
FAKE = window.open('', '_self', '');window.close();
Now .. if you define event handlers in the SECRET javascript it's probably accessible.. you need to define them outside with the launchcode and pointing to a nested SECRET function.
SO... is there a easy wayto get the code?
document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('div')).innerText='Awesome';
I'm not sure if this works but i'm using chrome and checked Elements,Resources,Network,Sources,Timeline,Profiles,Audits but i didn't find the line above.
note1: if u open the Troll.php url from Inspect element->network in chrome you get the fake code.
note2: the whole code is written for modern browsers. polyfill needs alot more code.
EDIT
launcher.html
<!doctype html><html><head><meta charset="utf-8"><title></title><script src="data:application/javascript;base64,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"></script></head><body></body></html>
Troll.php
<?php $t1=apache_request_headers();if(/*base64_encode($_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'])=='PUT THE LAUNCHER REFERER HERE'&&*/$_POST['Troll2']=='lol'&&$t1['Troll1']='lol'){echo 'ZG9jdW1lbnQuYm9keS5hcHBlbmRDaGlsZChkb2N1bWVudC5jcmVhdGVFbGVtZW50KCdkaXYnKSkuaW5uZXJUZXh0PSdBd2Vzb21lJzsNCg==';}else{echo 'd2luZG93Lm9wZW4oJycsICdfc2VsZicsICcnKTt3aW5kb3cuY2xvc2UoKTs=';}; ?>
The problem with interpreted languages, is that you send the source to get them working (unless you have a compiler to bytecode, but then again, it is quite trivial to decompile).
So, if you don't want to sacrifice performance, you can only act on variable and function names, eg. replacing them with a, b... aa, ab... or a101, a102, etc. And, of course, remove as much space/newlines as you can (that's what so called JS compressors do).
Obfuscating strings will have a performance hit, if you have to encrypt them and decrypt them in real time. Plus a JS debugger can show the final values...
Try JScrambler. I gave it a spin recently and was impressed by it.
It provides a set of templates for obfuscation with predefined settings for those who don't care much about the details and just want to get it done quickly. You can also create custom obfuscation by choosing whatever transformations/techniques you want.
Contrary to most of the other answers I suggest against YUI Compressor; you should use Google Closure.
Not much because it compresses more, but mostly because it will catch javascript errors such as a = [1,2,3,]; which make IE go haywire.
I can recommend JavaScript Utility by Patrick J. O'Neil. It can obfuscate/compact and compress and it seems to be pretty good at these. That said, I never tried integrating it in a build script of any kind.
As for obfuscating vs. minifying - I am not a big fan of the former. It makes debugging impossible (Error at line 1... "wait, there is only one line") and they always take time to unpack. But if you need to... well.
A non-open-source Javascript-based application is fairly silly. Javascript is a client-side interpreted language.. Obfuscation isn't much protection..
JS obfuscation is usually done to reduce the size of the script, rather than "protect" it. If you are in a situation where you don't want your code to be public, Javascript isn't the right language..
There are plenty of tools around, but most have the word "compressor" (or "minifier") in its name for a reason..
You can't secure client side code: just press F12 on Google Chrome, pause javascript execution and you will get all strings, even those encrypted. Beautify it and rename variables and you will get almost the original code.
If you're writing server side javascript (i.e. NodeJS) is afraid of someone hacking into your server and want to make the hacker work more difficult, giving you more time to get your access back, then use javacript compilers:
You need to use Closure Compiler on Advanced Compilation, as it's the only tool that renames all your variables, even if those are used in multiple files/modules. But it just have a problem: it only work if you write in it's coding style.
I would suggest first minify with something like YUI Compressor, and then convert all string and numbers to HEX Values using something like http://www.javascriptobfuscator.com/
With this, the code would be rendered near impossible to understand and I think at this Stage it will take more time for a Hacker to re-enact your code than actually if he re-wrote from scratch. Rewriting and Cloning is what you cant actually stop. After all we are free-people !
Try this tool Javascript Obfuscator
I used it on my HTML5 game not only it reduced it size from 950KB to 150 but also made the source code unreadable closure compilers and minifiers are reversable I personally dont know how to reverse this obfuscation.
Dean Edward's Packer is an excellent obfuscator, though it primarily obfuscates the code, not any string elements you may have within your code.
See: Online Javascript Compression Tool and select Packer (Dean Edwards) from the dropdown
I'm under the impression that some enterprises (e.g.: JackBe) put encrypted JavaScript code inside *.gif files, rather than JS files, as an additional measure of obfuscation.
I've been using Jasob for years and it is hands down the best obfuscator out there.
It has an advanced UI but is still intuitive and easy to use.
It will also handle HTML and CSS files.
The best way to use it is to prefix all of your private variables with something like an underscore, then use the sort feature to group them all together and check them off as targets for obfuscation.
Users can still view your source, but it's much more difficult to decipher when your private variables are converted from something like _sUserPreferredNickName to a.
The engine will automatically tally up the number of targeted variables and prioritize them to get the maximum compression.
I don't work for Jasob and I get nothing out of promoting them, just offering some friendly advice.
The downside is that it's not free and is a little pricey, but still worth it when stacked against alternatives - the 'free' options don't even come close.
Have you tried Bananascript? It produces highly compressed and completely unreadable code.
I am using Closure-Compiler utility for the java-script obfuscation. It minifies the code and has more options for obfuscation.
This utility is available at Google code at below URL:
Closure Tools
But now a days I am hearing much of UglifyJS. You can find various comparison between Closure Compiler and UglifyJS in which Uglify seems to be a winner.
UglifyJS: A Fast New JavaScript Compressor For Node.js That’s On Par With Closure
Soon I would give chance to UglifyJS.
As a JavaScript/HTML/CSS obfuscator/compressor you can also try Patu Digua.
You definitely should consider taking a look at Obfuscriptor.
I goes beyond the typical Javascript minifying tricks we've seen from other tools such as YUI Compressor or Google Closure.
The obfuscated code looks more like encrypted. Unlike anything I've seen before.
I've used this in the past, and it does a good job. It's not free, but you should definitely take a look.
JavaScript Obfuscator & Encoder
Completely new to Stack Exchange. Trying to learn programming, so checking out various websites and their JavaScript files. When I look at them, the look like a complete mess. E.g. If I go to Airbnb.com and view source, then look at the JS file (toward the bottom), then open it, it's a real mess. Others I look at around the web are similar. Is there a way to format this code to make it neater? (hopefully automatically e.g. if I copy/paste it somewhere?)
Here's an example
easiest way, beautify it with: http://minifybeautify.com
Your Examplecode is minified. There are many tools (http://jsbeautifier.org/) and plugins for IDEs to beautify it.
Many site uses uglify/minify methods to load scripts faster.
You can use a js beautifier to generate more readable code, but you should know that after minify method many var names are shorter so the code will not return to his original form
The reason why it looks like this is because it has been minified and concatenated.
To get started with JS I would recommend to start from books or posts. Also the structure of the files will change depending on the the frameworks you are using. It will be hard for you if you start learning about programming just by looking at the code of some random website.
A book I would recommend you to start with is this one :
JavaScript: The Good Parts
There is a very interesting repo at github which contains a series of books that you can start reading to start understanding pure javascript which is:
https://github.com/getify/You-Dont-Know-JS
If you want to read about a js framework you could start with Angular or React among others.
And finally although it may sound obvious you could just type "JavaScript getting started" in Google and you'll see plenty of posts to start reading and having a better idea of what JS is about.
After you understand it I would say that you can go and see in other pages how they are solving certain problems but I would not recommend to start from there.
Hope it is useful for you
Best
I need to compile / compact an "ever-growing" javascript app (round abouts 40k LoC, currently).
I don't have the time to integrate the "appropriate" tool for what I'm trying to do, something like require.js, as it requires modification of said code.
I was planning to just manually pile everything together to do a compact/compile routine, but at this point, I think that will make it quite difficult to maintain. (Ultimately, I'd like to keep the file structure broken down into its current hierarchy.)
That being said, I've been using a tool called Winless for .less compilation, andI really like its functionality:
add a folder set
note the files you want to include
watch for changes in those files and recompile when that happens
I'm wondering if an analogous tool exists for js?
The Closure Compiler does a top notch job, and I hear that Uglifyjs is good too. I might end up using Closure's REST api to manually manage file sets, but I'm wondering if anything exists that abstracts the process a little bit - into a standalone windows gui?
I've been poking around for a couple weeks, but have not come up with anything solid.
Cheers -
Have a look at http://gruntjs.com/ - "The JavaScript Task Runner". It becomes dead easy to script tasks, which would be along the lines of
a) run JSHint (for spotting errors in your code)
b) Run any QUnit tests
c) and finally call Uglify.js to compress your source in to a compressed, deployable file (I include a version number in mine to avoid caching issues).
There are numerous log files that I have to review daily for my job. Several good parsers already exist for these log files but I have yet to find exactly what I want. Well, who could make something more tailored to you than you, right?
The reason I am using JavaScript (other than the fact that I already know it) is because it's portable (no need to install anything) but at the same time cross-platform accessible. Before I invest too much time in this, is this a terrible method of accomplishing my goal?
The input will be entered into a text file, delimited by [x] and the values will be put into an array to make accessing these values faster than pulling the static content.
Any special formatting (numbers, dates, etc) will be dealt with before putting the value in the array to prevent a function from repeating this step every time it is used.
These logs may contain 100k+ lines which will be a lot for the browser to handle. However, each line doesn't contain a ton of information.
I have written some of it already, but with even 10,000 lines it's starting to run slow and I don't know if it's because I wasn't efficient enough or if this just cannot be effectively done. I'm thinking this is because all the data is in one giant table. I'd probably be better off paginating it, but that is less than desirable.
Question 1: Is there anything I failed to mention that I should consider?
Question 2: Would you recommend a better alternative?
Question 3: (A bit off topic, so feel free to ignore). Instead of copy/pasting the input, I would like to 'open' the log file but as far as I know JavaScript cannot do this (for security reasons). Can this be accomplished with a input="file" without actually having a server to upload to? I don't know how SSJS works, but it appears that I underestimated the limitations of JavaScript.
I understand this is a bit vague, but I'm trying to keep you all from having to read a book to answer my question. Let me know if I should include additional details. Thanks!
I think JavaScript is an "ok" choice for this. Using a scripting language to parse log files for personal use is a perfectly sane decision.
However, I would NOT use a browser for this. Web browsers place limitations on how long a bit of javascript can run, or on how many instructions it is allowed to run, or both. If you exceed these limits, you'll get something like this:
Since you'll be working with a large amount of data, I suspect you're going to hit this sooner or later. This can be avoided by clever use of setTimeout, or potentially with web workers, but that will add complexity to your project. This is probably not what you want.
Be aware that JavaScript can run outside of browsers as well. For instance, Windows comes with the Windows Script Host. This will let you run JavaScript from the command prompt, without needing a browser. You won't get the "Script too long" error. As an added bonus, you will have full access to the file system, and the ability to pass command-line arguments to your code.
Good luck and happy coding!
To answer your top question in bold: No, it is not a terrible idea.
If JS is the only language you know, you want to avoid setting up any dependencies, and you want to stay platform-independent... JavaScript seems like a good fit for your particular case.
As a more general rule, I would never use JS as a language to write a desktop app. Especially not for doing a task like log parsing. There are many other languages which are much better suited to this type of problem, like Python, Scala, VB, etc. I mention Python and Scala because of their script-like behaviour and minimal setup requirements. Python also has very similar syntax to JS so it might be easier to pick up then other languages. VB (or any .NET language) would work too if you have a Visual Studio license because of it's easy to use GUI builder if that suits your needs better.
My suggested approach: use an existing framework. There are hundreds, if not thousands of log parsers out there which handle all sorts of use-cases and different formats of logs that you should be able to find something close to what you need. It may just take a little more effort than Google'ing "Log Parsers" to find one that works. If you can't find one that suits your exact needs and you are willing to spend time making your own, you should use that time instead to contribute to one of the existing ones which are open source. Extending an existing code base should always be considered before trying to re-invent the wheel for the 10th gillion time.
Given your invariants "javascript, cross-platform, browser ui, as fast as possible" I would consider this approach:
Use command line scripts (windows: JScript; linux: ?) to parse log files and store 'clean'/relevant data in a SQLite Database (fall back: any decent scripting language can do this, the ready made/specialized tools may be used too)
Use the SQLite Manager addon to do your data mining with SQL
If (2) gets clumsy - use the SQLite Manager code base to 'make something more tailored'
Considering your comment:
For Windows-only work you can use the VS Express edition to write an app in C#, VB.NET, C++/CLI, F#, or even (kind of) Javascript (Silverlight). If you want to stick to 'classic' Javascript and a browser, write a .HTA application (full access to the local machine) and use ADO data(base) access and try to get the (old) DataGrid/Flexgrid controls (they may be installed already; search the registry).
If you use either Sproutcore or Cappuccino for your frontend, doesn't it mean that everyone could see your javascript and copy it?
If so, they'll have your whole frontend code.
Am I right or wrong?
On the web, if you don't give your frontend code to your user, it's not frontend code. There is no reason at all to worry about that though - the web has been like that since day one and it has been doing just fine. Focus on making a good product and getting noticed.
You are right. The javascript in your web pages runs on the client - so it needs to be downloadable by the client. By definition, clients have 'your whole frontent code'.
The usual process of trying to make your javascript hard to read (and therefore copy) is called obfuscation. Obfuscated javascript is the same as non-obfuscated javascript to the browser - so it will work equally well with any javascript framework.
You are right. Also, this is true of plain javascript.
Keep in mind that the "compiled" Cappuccino / Objective-J code is very different to the original code so it's not really easy for anyone to copy parts from your Cappuccino app and reuse it.
Ultimately, this isn't really a big issue of concern. In most cases it's far easier to just rewrite the code than to try to copy the packed code from the source. The fact that Apple uses SproutCore for their MobileMe tools would imply that they've found the risk to be minimal. We all know how much Apple likes to keep things to themselves :)