15 pointsby aragonite4 days ago4 comments
  • userbinatora day ago
    Be it for malicious intent

    "malicious" according to who? Somehow this article makes me think those trying to do things like this are on the pro-DRM side, which I absolutely abhor. The slow and forceful insertion of JS where it's not needed means users will increasingly need to inject and modify JS to retain control of their experience.

    • sneakerblacka day ago
      I think this was posted because the of the recent Npm malware fiasco. The malware monkey-patched native JS functions to replace strings that matched crypto addresses in certain the fetch, and XMLHttpRequest functions:

      https://www.aikido.dev/blog/npm-debug-and-chalk-packages-com...

      Considering there's no way to check whether a function is monkey-patched, this just tells me the JavaScript ecosystem was not designed with malicious actors in mind

  • sgammon8 hours ago
    of course one can simply monkey patch `toString`, or provide a symbol such that an object stringifies to that value, but sure
  • rasza day ago
    >// Store a reference of the original "clean" native function before any >// other script has a chance to modify it.

    joke is on you, adblock loads first and there is no way you will grab unmodified functions to detect it

  • 1718627440a day ago
    What is this even good for? When someone decides you now run in a JS emulator, why should you care and try to break out?