AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Moderate 63 Bitcoin

descriptor: validate registered descriptors when re-loading them

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Mike Tolkachev

50/100 · Thin
descriptor: validate registered descriptors when re-loading them
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component! No meaningful explanatory body
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit tightens validation when a Bitcoin hardware wallet reloads saved 'descriptors' (recipe-like data that describes how coins can be spent). It changes several length checks from 'greater than' to 'greater than or equal to', and adds a cap on the number of stored values. The change prevents a stored descriptor from claiming a length exactly equal to the fixed buffer size, which could leave the buffer without a terminating zero byte and cause memory corruption or crashes when the data is later used. Because the data is reloaded from the device's own storage, exploitation likely requires an attacker who can already tamper with stored data or trick the user into registering a malicious descriptor.

Recommended action

Treat this as a security hardening fix and include it in the next firmware release. Review other deserialization paths in descriptor.c and elsewhere for similar '>' vs '>=' off-by-one issues, and confirm that all string fields are either null-terminated or handled as length-prefixed blobs. If a CVE is desired, request one from MITRE or the vendor's security contact; the commit alone does not assign one.

Security signals we found

01

Off-by-one length validation allowing buffer-filling input

02

Missing null-terminator safeguard on fixed-size string buffers

03

Untrusted persisted data parsed without sufficient bounds checks

04

Potential out-of-bounds access in descriptor values array

05

Patch hardens deserialization but does not add new feature

Risk score

Why this scored 63/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 18/30
Exploitability 14/25
Stealth signal 10/15
Affected reach 10/15
Confidence 7/10
Evidence quality 4/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.