• Industrial Automation Engineer (unregistered)

    eval("fi" . "rst")

  • (nodebb)

    Amateur. Real programmers who obfuscate things in publically visible Javascript convert the function to hex first. Even better ones convert the entire Javascript codebase to hex and then decode it before execution. Even better ones convert it to hex, then rot13, then back to hex, then pig latin, and finally Egyptian hieroglyphic unicode before repeating everything twice for good measure.

  • (nodebb) in reply to mynameishidden

    This is PHP, not Javascript.

  • (author) in reply to Mr. TA

    Think how obfuscated it'd be if they wrote their PHP in JavaScript!

  • (nodebb) in reply to Remy Porter

    That's an idea. Imagine if JavaScript creates PHP code using string concatenation (for obfuscation purposes, obviously - we're all about security), then sends it to the server using XHR, and that code is executed using PHP's eval. This would achieve total obfuscation (and therefore security!) - nobody can ever find the PHP code which runs in the PHP source files.

  • WTF Linter (unregistered) in reply to Mr. TA

    eval, my favorite function for making something secure!

  • (nodebb) in reply to Remy Porter
    Think how obfuscated it'd be if they wrote their PHP in JavaScript!

    I'd rather not. Thanks for the nightmares, though.

  • Industrial Automation Engineer (unregistered) in reply to Mr. TA

    That how my ransomware remains undetected. Good luck with your heuristics.

  • (nodebb)

    Using function names that have nothing to do with the actual function seems to be part of the obfuscation.

  • löchlein deluxe (unregistered)

    If I found that in one of my clients' codebases, I'd put the thing offline for likely breach first and ask questions later. Somebody took "learn from hackers" waaaaay too seriously here.

  • Anon (unregistered)

    You people talk all about obfuscating by eval and code generation...

    Just use Perl

Leave a comment on “A Cache Exists”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #663662:

« Return to Article