A code with webpackChunkuxp_plugin wrapper doesn't seem to unwrap

[chameleonuser]

Describe the bug

So, webcrack fails to deobfuscate any vars or messed string arrays. Some other deobfuscators just throw eval error. Any advice? There is a webpackChunkuxp_plugin function in the very end of file, but how to work it around?
TIA

Expected Behaviour

unwrap webpack chunks?

Code

https://pixeldrain.com/u/tEwbudsA

Logs

No response

[j4k0xb]

only the first module (560) contains obfuscated code, so unpacking doesn't seem that useful.
(but can still be done with this experimental branch: https://deploy-preview-50--webcrack.netlify.app/)

var r = {
  560: (n, r, t) => {
    // ...
  },
  87: (n) => {
    n.exports = require("os");
  },
  826: (n) => {
    n.exports = require("photoshop");
  },
  878: (n) => {
    n.exports = require("uxp");
  },
};

the primary issue is that it's using an old obfuscator version, which isn't being detected
you can work around it by changing the structure from something like this

var d = ["qqAoh", "QlvpL", "construc", /* ... */];

(function (n, r) {
  function t(n, r, t, u) {
    return y(n - 444, u);
  }
  function u(n, r, t, u) {
    return y(n - 444, u);
  }
  while (true) {
    try {
      if (parseInt(t(906, 0, 0, 935)) + -parseInt(t(922, 0, 0, 895)) * -parseInt(t(1008, 0, 0, 1058)) + -parseInt(t(884, 0, 0, 966)) + parseInt(u(892, 0, 0, 787)) * parseInt(t(824, 0, 0, 918)) + -parseInt(u(901, 0, 0, 856)) * parseInt(u(974, 0, 0, 1070)) + parseInt(t(813, 0, 0, 897)) * -parseInt(u(985, 0, 0, 1061)) + parseInt(u(809, 0, 0, 772)) * parseInt(u(894, 0, 0, 958)) === 196615) {
        break;
      }
      n.push(n.shift());
    } catch (r) {
      n.push(n.shift());
    }
  }
})(d);

function y(n, r) {
  return (y = function (n, r) {
    return d[n -= 357];
  })(n, r);
}

to

function stringArray() {
  var d = ["qqAoh", "QlvpL", "construc", /* ... */];
  return (stringArray = function() { return d })()
}
(function (n, r) {
  n = n();
  function t(n, r, t, u) {
    return y(n - 444, u);
  }
  function u(n, r, t, u) {
    return y(n - 444, u);
  }
  while (true) {
    try {
      if (parseInt(t(906, 0, 0, 935)) + -parseInt(t(922, 0, 0, 895)) * -parseInt(t(1008, 0, 0, 1058)) + -parseInt(t(884, 0, 0, 966)) + parseInt(u(892, 0, 0, 787)) * parseInt(t(824, 0, 0, 918)) + -parseInt(u(901, 0, 0, 856)) * parseInt(u(974, 0, 0, 1070)) + parseInt(t(813, 0, 0, 897)) * -parseInt(u(985, 0, 0, 1061)) + parseInt(u(809, 0, 0, 772)) * parseInt(u(894, 0, 0, 958)) === 196615) {
        break;
      }
      n.push(n.shift());
    } catch (r) {
      n.push(n.shift());
    }
  }
})(stringArray);

function y(n, r) {
  var d = stringArray();
  return (y = function (n, r) {
    return d[n -= 357];
  })(n, r);
}

but it will be much work as the code has been obfuscated 40x in a row, so there are 40 different string arrays

[chameleonuser]

Hmm, technically it works, but it comes that script stops working even after initial Unminify with no check boxes active (I mean in webcrack), which makes it impossible to test further. So something breaks it from the start :(

[j4k0xb]

thats anti-tampering/debugging, any formatting changes will break it
webcrack usually deletes it automatically if the string array deobfuscation succeeds

here are examples how it looks like:

• 1ca09b6#diff-79724e5b9f01d8623a7a7f854ddb3691bb66f6cce20b9f2a173210cce79d54b1
• dd2ac00#diff-79724e5b9f01d8623a7a7f854ddb3691bb66f6cce20b9f2a173210cce79d54b1

[chameleonuser]

Does it mean that if all the string arrays are deobfuscated, webcrack then may find that anti-debug in one of them?

[j4k0xb]

yes

[chameleonuser]

So, I've tried to wrap every array according to your advice and it failed. Sometimes there was popup error: c is not defined or so. The code itself was processed somehow, but directly in it were strings like "webcrack_failed:undefined" a lot of them.
One by one iterations stuck at 3rd array var B = ["DMzuv",... with Sandbox timeout error. Looks like some of them resists even your trick. In my previous try I took some of them randomly and didn't find that stubborn ones, so maybe there are more.