According to the techy zilla blog

It will be much harder to deobfuscate code that has been obfuscated using multiple obfuscating algorithms. According to them, jsbeautifier can't fix this obfuscated code. Can you find another way to deobfuscate this type of obfuscation? If not, what is the closest you can get?

var _0x2815=["\x33\x20\x31\x28\x29\x7B\x32\x20\x30\x3D\x35\x3B\x34\x20\x30\x7D","\x7C","\x73\x70\x6C\x69\x74","\x78\x7C\x6D\x79\x46\x75\x6E\x63\x74\x69\x6F\x6E\x7C\x76\x61\x72\x7C\x66\x75\x6E\x63\x74\x69\x6F\x6E\x7C\x72\x65\x74\x75\x72\x6E\x7C","\x72\x65\x70\x6C\x61\x63\x65","","\x5C\x77\x2B","\x5C\x62","\x67"];eval(function (_0xf81fx1,_0xf81fx2,_0xf81fx3,_0xf81fx4,_0xf81fx5,_0xf81fx6){_0xf81fx5=function (_0xf81fx3){return _0xf81fx3;} ;if(!_0x2815[5][_0x2815[4]](/^/,String)){while(_0xf81fx3--){_0xf81fx6[_0xf81fx3]=_0xf81fx4[_0xf81fx3]||_0xf81fx3;} ;_0xf81fx4=[function (_0xf81fx5){return _0xf81fx6[_0xf81fx5];} ];_0xf81fx5=function (){return _0x2815[6];} ;_0xf81fx3=1;} ;while(_0xf81fx3--){if(_0xf81fx4[_0xf81fx3]){_0xf81fx1=_0xf81fx1[_0x2815[4]]( new RegExp(_0x2815[7]+_0xf81fx5(_0xf81fx3)+_0x2815[7],_0x2815[8]),_0xf81fx4[_0xf81fx3]);} ;} ;return _0xf81fx1;} (_0x2815[0],6,6,_0x2815[3][_0x2815[2]](_0x2815[1]),0,{}));
  • 1
    If you really want obfuscated Javascript, just compile something to asm.js
    – Antimony
    May 26, 2013 at 14:04
  • @Antimony: Quite a good idea!
    – Viet
    Feb 15, 2016 at 10:19

4 Answers 4


Using Malzilla, I was able to de-obfuscate this in ~30 seconds.

Step 1, open Malzilla, select the Decoder tab, and paste the JavaScript.

enter image description here

Step 2, you can optionally press the "Format Code" button to get a rudimentary re-formatting of the JS.

Step 3, check Override eval(), and click the Run script button.

enter image description here

You'll notice that in the output box, the de-obfuscated code is printed:

function myFunction(){var x=5;return x}

Why limit yourself to static deobfuscation? If you run that script through a JavaScript debugger and break on the return statement, you can see that _0xf81fx1 = function myFunction(){var x=5;return x}, which was the plain-text of the function before it was obfuscated.

Furthermore, if you run it through http://jsbeautifier.org, the last line of the output is:

}('3 1(){2 0=5;4 0}', 6, 6, 'x|myFunction|var|function|return|' ['split']('|'), 0, {}));

It can be seen that the '3 1(){2 0=5;4 0}' string just holds the indeces for the strings in the string-array 'x|myFunction|var|function|return|'. So http://jsbeautifier.org does pretty much deobfuscate it most all the way anyway.

  • I don't know how to interpret '3 1(){2 0=5;4 0}'
    – user101579
    Jun 1, 2013 at 7:36

jsbeautifier.org is not the source for JS deobfuscation, actually. See this question for more details Analyzing highly obfuscated JavaScript

After multiple de-obfuscations, it seems that code behind is:

//eval function myFunction(){var x=5;return x}



You could try using de4js. For the javascript snippet in the original post, de4js produces the following output:

var _0x2815 = ["3 1(){2 0=5;4 0}", "|", "split", "x|myFunction|var|function|return|", "replace", "", "\\w+", "\\b", "g"];
eval(function (_0xf81fx1, _0xf81fx2, _0xf81fx3, _0xf81fx4, _0xf81fx5, _0xf81fx6) {
    _0xf81fx5 = function (_0xf81fx3) {
        return _0xf81fx3;
    if (!_0x2815[5][_0x2815[4]](/^/, String)) {
        while (_0xf81fx3--) {
            _0xf81fx6[_0xf81fx3] = _0xf81fx4[_0xf81fx3] || _0xf81fx3;
        _0xf81fx4 = [function (_0xf81fx5) {
            return _0xf81fx6[_0xf81fx5];
        _0xf81fx5 = function () {
            return _0x2815[6];
        _0xf81fx3 = 1;
    while (_0xf81fx3--) {
        if (_0xf81fx4[_0xf81fx3]) {
            _0xf81fx1 = _0xf81fx1[_0x2815[4]](new RegExp(_0x2815[7] + _0xf81fx5(_0xf81fx3) + _0x2815[7], _0x2815[8]), _0xf81fx4[_0xf81fx3]);
    return _0xf81fx1;
}(_0x2815[0], 6, 6, _0x2815[3][_0x2815[2]](_0x2815[1]), 0, {}));

When the eval radio button is selected, this reduces to

function myFunction() {
    var x = 5;
    return x

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.