javascript-obfuscator VS firehol

I don't need/use IDA, Nemlei just used https://obfuscator.io/, which just obfuscates the crap out of the code using various known methods (which I won't go into detail, it's public knowledge) and an un-obfuscation was cooked up by others. The one fucked-up thing the website does is randomizing function names, it just changes every variable/function name. We can't "un-obfuscate" those, so it's up to our brains to figure out what the code does, and change the names back.

I was considering using a obfuscation library (https://github.com/javascript-obfuscator/javascript-obfuscator) and noticed in the usage example that backticks are used and the javascript is enclosed within. The issue is that my javascript already has backticks from using template literals so my code then errors out.

Obfuscation: JavaScript Obfuscator

What I ended up doing is having two build steps, one for renderer and other for the main process, in the main process build I use https://github.com/javascript-obfuscator/javascript-obfuscator. Works pretty fine.

It's to purposefully makes your code harder to read so it prevents people from stealing your work. Here's a tool that does it: https://obfuscator.io/

I just tested it on a little snippet of my code obfuscated with https://obfuscator.io/ and it worked seemingly perfectly.

My original code:

  function resizeImage(img) {

https://obfuscator.io/ produces a similar result, perhaps that's all they used.

http://iplists.firehol.org/ looks free and very comprehensive. It has whole bunch of sub-lists of IPs that are likely to be sources of abuse, including datacenters and VPNs, and it gets updated frequently. Github: https://github.com/firehol/firehol

it does somewhat but requires additional rules for the docker chains: https://github.com/firehol/firehol/issues/114

I like how it's configured, thanks for elaborating in it, I'm amazed I never heard of this project before. That link take me to https://github.com/firehol/firehol/pull/262 is that the right way?

One thing: the `interface not [devices...]` capability, as noted above, is slightly lacking. We get around it with a `interface e+ exposed` command, for now. Details: https://github.com/firehol/firehol/issues/450

I can not find the URL, I have found this: https://github.com/firehol/firehol/blob/master/sbin/update-ipsets