No it isn't, it is a bad thing, as it implies security that does not really exist, and encourages bad development practices. If you wish to do something like encrypt passwords, then you should write a web service to do so that you can (securely) call via XHR from your extension.
On Aug 24, 12:40 pm, "sebastian.zim" <[email protected]> wrote: > Anything that makes it harder to reverse engineer (even if it doesn't > make too much difference) is a good thing for security. > > On Aug 24, 12:33 pm, Uriel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Aaron Boodman<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM, > > > If you really do want this, you have the option to include NPAPI > > > plugins in your extension written in native code. Those are a lot > > > harder to reverse engineer. > > > They still can be reverse engineered easily enough, and anyone that > > relies on this for security, or for anything else, deserves to be > > fired on the spot for being totally incompetent. > > > uriel > > > > But the JavaScript, HTML, and CSS in Chromium extensions will never be > > > obfuscated. Any compilation will just be an optimization, and > > > transparent to the developer. > > > > - a --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
