My Node app gets an HTML page via axios, parses it via htmlparser2 then sends the valuable information to a frontend JS app as JSON.
The HTML page has some JavaScript in it that creates an array, and I need to work with that array in my code. htmlparser2 gets the content of the script as a string. I have two options to handle it as far as I know:
Write a parser that goes through the string and extracts the required info (doable, but complicated)
Run string as some JavaScript code and handle the values from that.
Assume I want to go with option 2. According to this StackOverflow question, using Node's VM module is possible, but the official documentation says "The node:vm module is not a security mechanism. Do not use it to run untrusted code."
I consider the code in my use case untrusted. What would be a safe solution for this?
EDIT: A snippet from the string:
hatizsakCucc = new Array();
hazbanCucc = new Array();
function adatokMessage(targyIndexStr,tomb) {
var targyIndex = parseInt(targyIndexStr);
if (tomb.length<1) alert("Nincs semmi!");
else alert(tomb[targyIndex]);
}
hatizsakCucc[0]="Név: ezüst\nSúly: 0.0001 kg.\nMennyiség: 453\nÖsszsúly: 0.0453 kg.\n";
hatizsakCucc[1]="Név: kaja\nSúly: 0.4 kg.\nÁr: 2 ezüst\nMennyiség: 68\nÖsszár: 136 ezüst\nÖsszsúly: 27.2 kg.\n";
hatizsakCucc[2]="Típus: fegyver\nNév: bot\nSúly: 2 kg.\nÁr: 6 ezüst\nMin. szint: 1\nMaximum sebzés: 6\nSebzés szórás: 5\nFajta: ütő/zúzó\n";
hatizsakCucc[3]="Típus: fegyver\nNév: parittya\nSúly: 0.3 kg.\nÁr: 14 ezüst\nMin. szint: 1\nMaximum sebzés: 7\nSebzés szórás: 4\nFajta: távolsági\n";
hatizsakCucc[4]="Név: csodatarisznya\nSúly: 4 kg.\nÁr: 1000 ezüst\nExtra: templomi árú\n";
hatizsakCucc[5]="Név: imamalom\nSúly: 5 kg.\nÁr: 150 ezüst\nExtra: templomi árú\n";
The whole string is about 100 lines of this, so it's not too much data.
What I need is the contents of the hatizsakCucc array. Actually, getting an array of that it not too difficult with a regex, I'm realizing now.
hatizsakSzkript.match(/hatizsakCucc(.*)\\n/g);
This gives me an array of the hatizsakCucc elements, so I guess my problem is solved.
That said, I'm still curious about the possibility of running "untrusted" code safely.
Further context:
I plan parse each array element so it will be an object, the object elements will be the substring separated by the \n-s
So the expected result for the first array element will be:
hatizsakCucc[0]{
nev: "ezüst",
suly: 0.0001,
mennyiseg: ...
}
I'll write a function that splits the string to substrings at the \n then parse the data with a match().
So I guess this is kinda a crazy out there question as I haven't found much in terms of references to it but maybe I've just been looking in the wrong place. What I'm setting out to do is to take my entire Javascript program (that exists in a single file) and I want to store it in the equivalent of a string.
I want to then take a secondary program that reads that string that contains my javascript code and execute it as if it was a normal javascript file. For example sets of code I have this as a structure of the code that would be in the string
var adminRole;
var account;
var color;
function sayHello() {
console.log('hello');
};
sayHello()
If that code was stored in a plain text file. Is there any simple way to then turn it all into javascript code and evaluate it like you normally would?
Before anyone down votes or call out as duplicate. I searched for code generation, auto code complete, code complete with python, and code automation with Java/Python and every results I have got were not relevant to task I want to achieve.
I am free to use any language but Java or Python are preferred due to various libraries and api support.
Task I have is: need to write a program that outputs *.js file and in that file I am going to have a same function printed many time as number of inputs.
Here Only thing that changes is name of the function and to speak.
n These two inputs are passed in as CSV file like column one is NAME and Column two is MESSAGE(to speak)
---------------------------------- output.js -------------------------------
module.exports = {
john: john,
tony: tony,
laura: laura
};
function john(assistant) {
let toSpeak = "Here something goes for John";
assistant.setContext("navigator", 1, {"mynavigator": OPTIONS});
return askAssistant(toSpeak, assistant);
function tony(assistant) {
let toSpeak = "whatever is message for tony";
assistant.setContext("navigator", 1, {"mynavigator": OPTIONS});
return askAssistant(toSpeak, assistant);
function laura(assistant) {
let toSpeak = "I think you got where I am going with";
assistant.setContext("navigator", 1, {"mynavigator": OPTIONS});
return askAssistant(toSpeak, assistant)
-----------------------------output.js------------------------------------------
I am not asking anyone to code this for me rather suggest me a tool that would help me achieve this task. I will sincerely appreciate your kind feedback
I can think of two approaches you could take.
The first approach is to use print statements in your favourite programming language to print out the required text. And, of course, wrap some of those print statements in for-loops to iterate over the list of (name, message) tuples. This approach is straightforward and does not require use of any third-party code-generation tools.
The second approach is to use a template engine, such as Apache Velocity (for Java).
I am have some JavaScript functions that run on both the client (browser) and the server (within a Java Rhino context). These are small functions - basically little validators that are well defined and don't rely upon globals or closures - self-contained and portable.
Here's an example:
function validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, params, property) {
var phonePattern = /^\+?([0-9\- \(\)])*$/;
if (value && value.length && !phonePattern.test(value))
return [ {"policyRequirement": "VALID_PHONE_FORMAT"}];
else
return [];
}
To keep things DRY, my server code gets a handle on each of these functions and calls toString() on them, returning them to the browser as part of a JSON object. Something like this:
{ "name" : "phoneNumber",
"policies" : [
{ "policyFunction" : "\nfunction validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, params, property) {\n var phonePattern = /^\\+?([0-9\\- \\(\\)])*$/;\n if (value && value.length && !phonePattern.test(value)) {\n return [{\"policyRequirement\":\"VALID_PHONE_FORMAT\"}];\n } else {\n return [];\n }\n}\n"
}
]
}
My browser JS code then takes this response and creates an instance of this function in that context, like so:
eval("var policyFunction = " + this.policies[j].policyFunction);
policyFailures = policyFunction.call(this, form2js(this.input.closest("form")[0]), this.input.val(), params, this.property.name));
This all works very well. However, I then run this code through JSLint, and I get back this message:
[ERROR] ValidatorsManager.js:142:37:eval is evil.
I appreciate that often, eval can be dangerous. However, I have no idea how else I could implement such a mechanism without using it. Is there any way I can do this and also pass through the JSLint validator?
I wouldn't worry about it since you are only passing these function strings from the server to the client, and are thus in control of what will be evaluated.
On the other hand, if you were going the other direction and doing the evals of client-passed code on the server, that would be an entirely different story...
Update:
As disabling the validation option in your comment may cause you to miss future errors, I would instead suggest passing the function name rather than the entire function and have the function library mirrored on the server and client. Thus, to call the function, you'd use the following code:
var policyFunction = YourLibraryName[this.policies[j].policyFunctionName];
var policyArguments = this.policies[j].policyArguments;
policyFunction.apply(this, policyArguments);
Update 2:
I was able to validate the following code with JSLint successfully, which essentially allows you to "turn off" validation for the vast minority of cases where eval is appropriate. At the same time, JSLint still validates normal eval calls, and all uses of this method should throw up flags for future developers to avoid using it/refactor it out where possible/as time allows.
var EVAL_IS_BAD__AVOID_THIS = eval;
EVAL_IS_BAD__AVOID_THIS(<yourString>);
Dont encode a function as a string in JSON. JSON is for content, which you are confounding with behavior.
Instead, I suppose you could return JS files instead, which allow real functions:
{ name : "phoneNumber",
policies : [
{ policyFunction : function() {
whateverYouNeed('here');
}
}
]
}
But while that solves the technical issue, it's still not a great idea.
The real solution here is to move your logic out of your content entirely. Import a JS file full of little validation functions and call them as needed based on a dataType property in your JSON or something. If this functions are as small and portable as you say, this should be trivial to accomplish.
Getting your data all tangled up with your code usually leads to pain. You should statically include your JS, then dynamically request/import/query for your JSON data to run through your statically included code.
I would avoid using eval in all situations. There's no reason you can't code around it. Instead of sending code to the client, just keep it hosted on the server in one contained script file.
If that's not doable, you can also have a dynamically generated javascript file then pass in the necessary parameters via the response, and then dynamically load the script on the client side. There's really no reason to use eval.
Hope that helps.
You can use
setInterval("code to be evaluated", 0);
Internally, if you pass setInterval a string it performs a function similar to eval().
However, I wouldn't worry about it. If you KNOW eval() is evil, and take appropriate precautions, it's not really a problem. Eval is similar to GoTo; you just have to be careful and aware of what you're doing to use them properly.
With very little parsing you could have had it like so:
var body = this.policies[j].policyFunction.substr;
body = body.substr(body.indexOf("(") + 1);
var arglist = body.substr(1, body.indexOf(")"));
body = body.substr(arglist.length + 1);
var policyFunction = new Function(arglist, body);
Which would provide a bit of validation, avoid the literal use of eval and work synchronously with the code. But it is surely eval in disguise, and it is prone to XSS attack. If the malevolent person can get their code loaded and evaluated this way - it will not save you. So, really, just don't do it. Add a <script> tag with the proper URL and that would be certainly safer. Well, you know, better safe then sorry.
PS. My apologises if the code above doesn't work, it only shows the intent, I've not tested it, and if I made a mistake at counting parenthesis or some such - well, you should get the idea, I'm not advertising it by any means.
DRY is definitely something I agree with, however there is a point where copy+pasting is more efficient and easy to maintain than referencing the same piece of code.
The code you're saving yourself from writing seems to be equivalent to a clean interface, and simple boiler plate. If the same code is being used on both the server and the client, you could simply pass around the common pieces of the function, rather than the whole function.
Payload:
{
"name": "phoneNumber",
"type": "regexCheck",
"checkData": "/^\\+?([0-9\\- \\(\\)])*$/"
}
if(payload.type === "regexCheck"){
const result = validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, payload.checkData)
}
function validPhoneFormat(fullObject, value, regexPattern) {
if (value && value.length && !regexPattern.test(value))
return [ {"policyRequirement": "VALID_PHONE_FORMAT"}];
else
return [];
}
This would give you the ability to update the regex from a single location. If the interface changes it does need to be updated in 2 places, but I wouldn't consider that a bad thing. If the client is running code, why hide the structure?
If you really, really want to keep both the object structure and the patterns in one place - extract it to a single API. Have a "ValidatePhoneViaRegex" api endpoint which is called by all places you'd be passing this serialized function to.
If all of this seems like too much effort, set jslint to ignore your piece of code:
"In JSHint 1.0.0 and above you have the ability to ignore any warning with a special option syntax. The identifier of this warning is W061. This means you can tell JSHint to not issue this warning with the /*jshint -W061 */ directive.
In ESLint the rule that generates this warning is named no-eval. You can disable it by setting it to 0, or enable it by setting it to 1."
https://github.com/jamesallardice/jslint-error-explanations/blob/master/message-articles/eval.md
I would prefer to see copy+pasted code, a common api, or receiving parameters and copy+pasted boiler plate than magical functions passed in from the server to be executed.
What happens if you get a cross-browser compatibility error with one of these shared functions?
Well, the first thing to bear in mind is that jsLint does make the point that "it will hurt your feelings". It's designed to point out where you're not following best practices -- but code that isn't perfect can still work just fine; there's no compulsion upon you to follow jsLint's advice.
Having said that, eval is evil, and in virtually all cases there is always a way around using it.
In this case, you could use a library such as require.js, yepnope.js or some other library that is designed to load a script separately. This would allow you to include the javascript functions you need dynamically but without having to eval() them.
There are probably several other solutions as well, but that was the first one that came to my mind.
Hope that helps.
I have searched Google for a converter but I did not find anything. Is there any tools available or I must make one to decode my obfuscated JavaScript code ?
I presume there is such a tool but I'm not searching Google with the right keywords.
The code is 3 pages long, this is why I need a tools.
Here is an exemple of the code :
<script>([][(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]][([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]]()[(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(+(+[])+[][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[+!+[]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]])(([]+[])[([][(![]+[])[+[]]+([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]]+(![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+[]]+(!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+[])[+!+[]]]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]]+(!![]+
Thank you
This code is fascinating because it seems to use only nine characters ("[]()!+,;" and empty space U+0020) yet has some sophisticated functionality. It appears to use JavaScript's implicit type conversion to coerce arrays into various primitive types and their string representations and then use the characters from those strings to compose other strings which type out the names of functions which are then called.
Consider the following snippet which evaluates to the array filter function:
([][
(![]+[])[+[]] // => "f"
+ ([![]]+[][[]])[+!+[]+[+[]]] // => "i"
+ (![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]] // => "l"
+ (!![]+[])[+[]] // => "t"
+ (!![]+[])[!+[]+!+[]+!+[]] // => "e"
+ (!![]+[])[+!+[]] // => "r"
]) // => function filter() { /* native code */ }
Reconstructing the code as such is time consuming and error prone, so an automated solution is obviously desirable. However, the behavior of this code is so tightly bound to the JavaScript runtime that de-obsfucating it seems to require a JS interpreter to evaluate the code.
I haven't been able to find any tools that will work generally with this sort of encoding. It seems as though you'll have to study the code further and determine any patterns of usage (e.g. reliance on array methods) and figure out how to capture their usage (e.g. by wrapping high-level functions [such as Function.prototype.call]) to trace the code execution for you.
This question has already an accepted answer, but I will still post to clear some things up.
When this idea come up, some guy made a generator to encode JavaScript in this way. It is based on doing []["sort"]["call"]()["eval"](/* big blob of code here */). Therefore, you can decode the results of this encoder easily by removing the sort-call-eval part (i.e. the first 1628 bytes). In this case it produces:
if (document.cookie=="6ffe613e2919f074e477a0a80f95d6a1"){ alert("bravo"); }
else{ document.location="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0"; }
(Funny enough the creator of this code was not even able to compress it properly and save a kilobyte)
There is also an explanation of why this code doesn't work in newer browser anymore: They changed Array.prototype.sort so it does not return a reference to window. As far as I remember, this was the only way to get a reference to window, so this code is kind of broken now.