Javascript中的Bitwise XOR与C ++相比

时间:2012-07-19 14:39:11

标签: javascript c++ bit-manipulation bitwise-xor

我正在向Javascript移植一个简单​​的C ++函数,但似乎我遇到了Javascript处理按位运算符的问题。

在C ++中:

AnsiString MyClass::Obfuscate(AnsiString source)
{
    int sourcelength=source.Length();
    for(int i=1;i<=sourcelength;i++)
    {
        source[i] = source[i] ^ 0xFFF;
    }
    return source;
}

Obfuscate(“test”)产生临时的intvalues

-117, -102, -116, -117

Obfuscate(“test”)产生stringvalue

‹šŒ‹

在Javascript中:

function obfuscate(str) 
{
    var obfuscated= "";
    for (i=0; i<str.length;i++) {

        var a = str.charCodeAt(i);                 
        var b = a ^ 0xFFF;
        obfuscated= obfuscated+String.fromCharCode(b);
    }
    return obfuscated;
}       

obfuscate(“test”)产生临时的intvalues

3979 , 3994 , 3980 , 3979

obfuscate(“test”)产生stringvalue

ྋྚྌྋ

现在,我意识到有很多线程,他们指出Javascript将所有数字视为浮点数,而按位操作涉及临时转换为32位int。

除非我在Javascript中混淆并在C ++中进行反转,否则它确实不会成为问题,并且不同的结果并不匹配。

如何将Javascript结果转换为C ++结果?是否有一些简单的班次?

5 个答案:

答案 0 :(得分:4)

Working demo

根据x 1160xFFF给出-117的结果判断,我们必须模仿 2补码javascript中的8位整数:

function obfuscate(str) 
{
    var bytes = [];
    for (var i=0; i<str.length;i++) {
        bytes.push( ( ( ( str.charCodeAt(i) ^ 0xFFF ) & 0xFF ) ^ 0x80 ) -0x80 );
    }
    return bytes;
}   

好的这些字节在windows cp 1252中被解释,如果它们是负数,可能只是从256减去。

var ascii = [
    0x0000,0x0001,0x0002,0x0003,0x0004,0x0005,0x0006,0x0007,0x0008,0x0009,0x000A,0x000B,0x000C,0x000D,0x000E,0x000F
    ,0x0010,0x0011,0x0012,0x0013,0x0014,0x0015,0x0016,0x0017,0x0018,0x0019,0x001A,0x001B,0x001C,0x001D,0x001E,0x001F
    ,0x0020,0x0021,0x0022,0x0023,0x0024,0x0025,0x0026,0x0027,0x0028,0x0029,0x002A,0x002B,0x002C,0x002D,0x002E,0x002F
    ,0x0030,0x0031,0x0032,0x0033,0x0034,0x0035,0x0036,0x0037,0x0038,0x0039,0x003A,0x003B,0x003C,0x003D,0x003E,0x003F
    ,0x0040,0x0041,0x0042,0x0043,0x0044,0x0045,0x0046,0x0047,0x0048,0x0049,0x004A,0x004B,0x004C,0x004D,0x004E,0x004F
    ,0x0050,0x0051,0x0052,0x0053,0x0054,0x0055,0x0056,0x0057,0x0058,0x0059,0x005A,0x005B,0x005C,0x005D,0x005E,0x005F
    ,0x0060,0x0061,0x0062,0x0063,0x0064,0x0065,0x0066,0x0067,0x0068,0x0069,0x006A,0x006B,0x006C,0x006D,0x006E,0x006F
    ,0x0070,0x0071,0x0072,0x0073,0x0074,0x0075,0x0076,0x0077,0x0078,0x0079,0x007A,0x007B,0x007C,0x007D,0x007E,0x007F
];

var cp1252 = ascii.concat([
    0x20AC,0xFFFD,0x201A,0x0192,0x201E,0x2026,0x2020,0x2021,0x02C6,0x2030,0x0160,0x2039,0x0152,0xFFFD,0x017D,0xFFFD
    ,0xFFFD,0x2018,0x2019,0x201C,0x201D,0x2022,0x2013,0x2014,0x02DC,0x2122,0x0161,0x203A,0x0153,0xFFFD,0x017E,0x0178
    ,0x00A0,0x00A1,0x00A2,0x00A3,0x00A4,0x00A5,0x00A6,0x00A7,0x00A8,0x00A9,0x00AA,0x00AB,0x00AC,0x00AD,0x00AE,0x00AF
    ,0x00B0,0x00B1,0x00B2,0x00B3,0x00B4,0x00B5,0x00B6,0x00B7,0x00B8,0x00B9,0x00BA,0x00BB,0x00BC,0x00BD,0x00BE,0x00BF
    ,0x00C0,0x00C1,0x00C2,0x00C3,0x00C4,0x00C5,0x00C6,0x00C7,0x00C8,0x00C9,0x00CA,0x00CB,0x00CC,0x00CD,0x00CE,0x00CF
    ,0x00D0,0x00D1,0x00D2,0x00D3,0x00D4,0x00D5,0x00D6,0x00D7,0x00D8,0x00D9,0x00DA,0x00DB,0x00DC,0x00DD,0x00DE,0x00DF
    ,0x00E0,0x00E1,0x00E2,0x00E3,0x00E4,0x00E5,0x00E6,0x00E7,0x00E8,0x00E9,0x00EA,0x00EB,0x00EC,0x00ED,0x00EE,0x00EF
    ,0x00F0,0x00F1,0x00F2,0x00F3,0x00F4,0x00F5,0x00F6,0x00F7,0x00F8,0x00F9,0x00FA,0x00FB,0x00FC,0x00FD,0x00FE,0x00FF
]);

function toStringCp1252(bytes){
    var byte, codePoint, codePoints = [];
    for( var i = 0; i < bytes.length; ++i ) {
        byte = bytes[i];
        if( byte < 0 ) {
            byte = 256 + byte;
        }
        codePoint = cp1252[byte];
        codePoints.push( codePoint );

    }

    return String.fromCharCode.apply( String, codePoints );
}

结果

toStringCp1252(obfuscate("test"))
//"‹šŒ‹"

答案 1 :(得分:1)

我认为AnsiString是某种形式,char的数组。这就是问题所在。在中,char通常只能容纳8位。因此,当您使用0xfff进行异或,并将结果存储在char时,它与使用0xff的XORing相同。

不是这种情况。使用Unicode的JavaScript。通过查看整数值来证明这一点:

-117 == 0x8b3979 == 0xf8b

我建议使用0xff进行异或,因为这适用于两种语言。或者,您可以切换代码以使用Unicode。

答案 2 :(得分:1)

我猜测AnsiString包含8位字符(因为ANSI字符集是8位)。当您将XOR的结果分配回字符串时,它会被截断为8位,因此结果值的范围为[-128 ... 127]。

(在某些平台上,它可能是[0..255],而在其他平台上,范围可能更宽,因为没有指定char是有符号还是无符号,或者它是8位还是更大)

Javascript字符串包含unicode字符,可以包含更宽范围的值,结果不会截断为8位。 XOR的结果将具有至少12位的范围,[0 ... 4095],因此您看到的数字很大。

假设原始字符串仅包含8位字符,那么将操作更改为a ^ 0xff应该会在两种语言中产生相同的结果。

答案 3 :(得分:0)

首先,将您的AnsiString转换为wchar_t*。然后才混淆其个别角色:

AnsiString MyClass::Obfuscate(AnsiString source)
{
   /// allocate string
   int num_wchars = source.WideCharBufSize();
   wchar_t* UnicodeString = new wchar_t[num_wchars];
   source.WideChar(UnicodeString, source.WideCharBufSize());

   /// obfuscate individual characters
   int sourcelength=source.Length();
   for(int i = 0 ; i < num_wchars ; i++)
   {
       UnicodeString[i] = UnicodeString[i] ^ 0xFFF;
   }

   /// create obfuscated AnsiString
   AnsiString result = AnsiString(UnicodeString);

   /// delete tmp string
   delete [] UnicodeString;

   return result;
}

抱歉,我不是C ++ Builder的专家,但我的观点很简单:在JavaScript中你有WCS2符号(或UTF-16),所以你必须先将AnsiString转换成宽字符。< / p>

尝试使用WideString代替AnsiString

答案 4 :(得分:0)

我根本不知道AnsiString,但我的猜测是这与其角色的宽度有关。具体来说,我怀疑它们的宽度小于32位,当然还有按位操作,你操作的宽度与问题有关,特别是在处理2的补码数时。

在JavaScript中,"t"中的"test"是字符代码116,即b00000000000000000000000001110100。 0xFFF(4095)是b00000000000000000000111111111111,你得到的结果(3979)是b00000000000000000000111110001011。我们可以很容易地看到您为XOR获得了正确的结果:

116  = 00000000000000000000000001110100
4095 = 00000000000000000000111111111111
3979 = 00000000000000000000111110001011

所以我认为你在C ++代码中得到了一些截断或类似的东西,尤其是因为-117是8位2补码中的b10001011 ...这正是我们的意思看作上面3979的最后八位。