What the developer wrote
Authored by Marko Bencun
atecc: don't call securechip_kdf
The securechip interface function dispatches to atecc_kdf, no need to
go through the dispatcher.
What changed, and why it matters
This is a tiny internal code cleanup in the BitBox02 firmware. It replaces one function call with another that does the exact same thing, just without going through a dispatcher. There is no visible security effect.
No action needed. Treat as a normal refactoring commit.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The change removes an indirection: securechip_kdf() is a dispatcher that calls atecc_kdf(). The patch calls atecc_kdf() directly inside atecc_stretch_password(). The behavior and trust boundary are unchanged; both functions take the same arguments and return the same result. No security bug is introduced or fixed.
Changed components
src/atecc/atecc.cInspect captured patch +1 / −1
diff --git a/src/atecc/atecc.c b/src/atecc/atecc.c
index a68dae9..ff668c5 100644
--- a/src/atecc/atecc.c
+++ b/src/atecc/atecc.c
@@ -616,7 +616,7 @@ int atecc_stretch_password(
// Second KDF does not use the counter and we call it multiple times.
for (int i = 0; i < KDF_NUM_ITERATIONS; i++) {
memcpy(kdf_in, stretched_out, 32);
- securechip_result = securechip_kdf(kdf_in, 32, stretched_out);
+ securechip_result = atecc_kdf(kdf_in, 32, stretched_out);
if (securechip_result) {
return securechip_result;
}
Why this scored 15/100
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.