6 ms·

Pop open developer tools - Gmail's JavaScript is heavily obfuscated, not just minified. (I think it's a custom, self-modifying VM that's written in JavaScript,

Pop open developer tools - Gmail's JavaScript is heavily obfuscated, not just minified. (I think it's a custom, self-modifying VM that's written in JavaScript, and it fetches pieces of itself over the network, like ReCAPTCHA). This "DRM" plays at least some role in making the optimizers in V8 work a lot harder to get anything reasonable out of the spaghetti. Why Google needs DRM for a web email app? Beyond me.

v8dev123 5y ago
>> Why Google needs DRM for a web email app? The reason we use such tactics is to increasing barrier of reverse engineering because our teams value their work. Some people claim that security through obscurity is bad. I challenge this view. I claim that every security defense such as RSA is a obscurity. It's a matter of time until RSA breaks in the same way as Obfuscation does. Gmail is not your let's make it weekend kind of app. It's highly sophisticated and deliver huge value. There are lot of people who hate Obfuscation. Some are communists and others are attackers. My wife (she works in the fraud detection department) found an interesting attacker who masqueraded as a security researcher and student of X University, but in fact he was a a criminal scum. He has reverse engineered anti-fraud scripts of many websites and published them on Github for everyone to see. His main goal was to attract malicious buyers and sell them scripts that bypass this protection. It was one of the heck of marketing. Brian Krebs also had similar story on his blog.
- oxylibrium 5y ago
  I'll bite. First, encryption is not "obscurity" in the same way you think DRM is. Second, several other email providers don't think they need to rely on some performance-killing DRM to "protect" their web app (oh no, what of all the value!). Outlook has a part of their files minified, but doesn't use any obfuscation; apps like ProtonMail[0] and Tutanota[1] are even open source. (I'm actually starting to migrate off of Gmail to Protonmail myself.) [0]: https://github.com/ProtonMail/proton-mail/ https://github.com/ProtonMail/proton-mail/ (the new site, on beta.protonmail.com) [1]: https://github.com/tutao/tutanota https://github.com/tutao/tutanota Oh, and there's no need to call people "communists", "attackers", or "criminal scum". Be civil.
  - v8dev123 5y ago
    Encryption is "obscurity". For example, Quantum computers will break RSA. > Quantum computers will break RSA Now here it will take X amount of time so is breaking any protection like DRM. The goal of any security method is increasing attack time. TLS got attacked, SSL got attacked. History repeats itself. Period. > Oh, and there's no need to call people "communists", "attackers", or "criminal scum". Be civil. Why? I have a right to use these terms. What should I use instead? Would you call Osama Bin Laden as "His Highness Bin Laden"? The words exists for reason. I use them in appropriate context. People don't understand Russian soul. I'm very direct and speak my mind! >> Second, several other email providers don't think they need to rely on some performance-killing DRM to "protect" their web app (oh no, what of all the value!). >> Outlook has a part of their files minified, but doesn't use any obfuscation; apps like ProtonMail[0] and Tutanota[1] are even open source. So? What's your point? You have Linux which is Open Source and you have Windows (A lot of parts including their licencing is obfuscated) The performance hit is minimal. ProtonMail & Tutanota are way slower than GMail and lack cutting edge features we offer. Gmail vs Outlook is like Ferrari vs Toyota. Gmail has great UX even my grandmother can use it.
    - emn13 5y ago
      The point is that nobody relevant is going to get stopped by this DRM. That's because nobody relevant is likely to even try copying it in the first place, and if an economically relevant party were so unwise, I expect google's legal resources are sufficient to discourage plain copying, even if a court case is never won. They might learn some tricks sure, but the chances of gmail's client side bits doing anything that novel that's also competetively important are slim to none. (And if there really is some kind of secret sauce that needs protecting, relying on DRM seems quite... optimistic. Finally, we're only talking front-end here, not backend; and surely that's at least as important a part of the value proposition here. While there may be a case for DRM in some places, gmail is almost certainly not it.
      - v8dev123 5y ago
        >> I expect google's legal resources are sufficient to discourage plain copying, even if a court case is never won. Attackers don't care about laws. All they care about their end goal. You have fraudsters who game the AdWords, reCaptcha etc Gmail is a strategic tool. >> the chances of gmail's client side bits doing anything that novel that's also competetively important are slim to none You are underestimating value of Gmail product. I'm not allowed to share what kind of value the client side has but it certainly does. >> While there may be a case for DRM in some places, gmail is almost certainly not it. Again, you are underestimating value Gmail provides to consumers. This country is a democracy. Companies can obfuscate or de obfuscate code at their wish whether there is value or not. Privacy people can use Privacy oriented tools or go build their own seriously. DRM is a billion dollar industry!
- manigandham 5y ago
  It's just a webapp for email. There are hundreds of them. There's nothing special about it to hide in the first place.
  - v8dev123 5y ago
    > It's just a webapp That's it. You're underestimating hard work. Try to create a full Gmail clone over weekend.
bool3max 5y ago
They're too embarrassed of all the shit code they've written that makes the app slow - so they obfuscate it to try to hide how shit it is - and it turn it becomes even slower ;)

v8dev123 5y ago

>> Why Google needs DRM for a web email app? The reason we use such tactics is to increasing barrier of reverse engineering because our teams value their work. Some people claim that security through obscurity is bad. I challenge this view. I claim that every security defense such as RSA is a obscurity. It's a matter of time until RSA breaks in the same way as Obfuscation does. Gmail is not your let's make it weekend kind of app. It's highly sophisticated and deliver huge value. There are lot of people who hate Obfuscation. Some are communists and others are attackers. My wife (she works in the fraud detection department) found an interesting attacker who masqueraded as a security researcher and student of X University, but in fact he was a a criminal scum. He has reverse engineered anti-fraud scripts of many websites and published them on Github for everyone to see. His main goal was to attract malicious buyers and sell them scripts that bypass this protection. It was one of the heck of marketing. Brian Krebs also had similar story on his blog.

oxylibrium 5y ago
I'll bite. First, encryption is not "obscurity" in the same way you think DRM is. Second, several other email providers don't think they need to rely on some performance-killing DRM to "protect" their web app (oh no, what of all the value!). Outlook has a part of their files minified, but doesn't use any obfuscation; apps like ProtonMail[0] and Tutanota[1] are even open source. (I'm actually starting to migrate off of Gmail to Protonmail myself.) [0]: https://github.com/ProtonMail/proton-mail/ https://github.com/ProtonMail/proton-mail/ (the new site, on beta.protonmail.com) [1]: https://github.com/tutao/tutanota https://github.com/tutao/tutanota Oh, and there's no need to call people "communists", "attackers", or "criminal scum". Be civil.
- v8dev123 5y ago
  Encryption is "obscurity". For example, Quantum computers will break RSA. > Quantum computers will break RSA Now here it will take X amount of time so is breaking any protection like DRM. The goal of any security method is increasing attack time. TLS got attacked, SSL got attacked. History repeats itself. Period. > Oh, and there's no need to call people "communists", "attackers", or "criminal scum". Be civil. Why? I have a right to use these terms. What should I use instead? Would you call Osama Bin Laden as "His Highness Bin Laden"? The words exists for reason. I use them in appropriate context. People don't understand Russian soul. I'm very direct and speak my mind! >> Second, several other email providers don't think they need to rely on some performance-killing DRM to "protect" their web app (oh no, what of all the value!). >> Outlook has a part of their files minified, but doesn't use any obfuscation; apps like ProtonMail[0] and Tutanota[1] are even open source. So? What's your point? You have Linux which is Open Source and you have Windows (A lot of parts including their licencing is obfuscated) The performance hit is minimal. ProtonMail & Tutanota are way slower than GMail and lack cutting edge features we offer. Gmail vs Outlook is like Ferrari vs Toyota. Gmail has great UX even my grandmother can use it.
  - emn13 5y ago
    The point is that nobody relevant is going to get stopped by this DRM. That's because nobody relevant is likely to even try copying it in the first place, and if an economically relevant party were so unwise, I expect google's legal resources are sufficient to discourage plain copying, even if a court case is never won. They might learn some tricks sure, but the chances of gmail's client side bits doing anything that novel that's also competetively important are slim to none. (And if there really is some kind of secret sauce that needs protecting, relying on DRM seems quite... optimistic. Finally, we're only talking front-end here, not backend; and surely that's at least as important a part of the value proposition here. While there may be a case for DRM in some places, gmail is almost certainly not it.
    - v8dev123 5y ago
      >> I expect google's legal resources are sufficient to discourage plain copying, even if a court case is never won. Attackers don't care about laws. All they care about their end goal. You have fraudsters who game the AdWords, reCaptcha etc Gmail is a strategic tool. >> the chances of gmail's client side bits doing anything that novel that's also competetively important are slim to none You are underestimating value of Gmail product. I'm not allowed to share what kind of value the client side has but it certainly does. >> While there may be a case for DRM in some places, gmail is almost certainly not it. Again, you are underestimating value Gmail provides to consumers. This country is a democracy. Companies can obfuscate or de obfuscate code at their wish whether there is value or not. Privacy people can use Privacy oriented tools or go build their own seriously. DRM is a billion dollar industry!
manigandham 5y ago
It's just a webapp for email. There are hundreds of them. There's nothing special about it to hide in the first place.
- v8dev123 5y ago
  > It's just a webapp That's it. You're underestimating hard work. Try to create a full Gmail clone over weekend.

bool3max 5y ago

They're too embarrassed of all the shit code they've written that makes the app slow - so they obfuscate it to try to hide how shit it is - and it turn it becomes even slower ;)