You are reading a single comment by @DrAzzy and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • I tend to agree that this probably ought to be in the firmware, not JS... I get the impression that the JS implementation would be memory intensive, both in terms of code size and variables. We already use a lot of RAM for JS modules with AT and ESP8266WiFi. If we add JS encryption on top of that, I worry that there wouldn't be much ram left for user code.

About

Avatar for DrAzzy @DrAzzy started