AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
High 71 Bitcoin

ENV-2282: fixed taproot versions of component hashes when coming after segwit

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Matt Gleason

65/100 · Adequate
ENV-2282: fixed taproot versions of component hashes when coming after
segwit
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides an explanatory body
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This firmware update fixes a bug in how Passport hardware wallets compute Taproot Bitcoin transaction signatures. Previously, when a transaction contained both SegWit and Taproot inputs, the wallet could accidentally reuse cached SegWit-style hashes for the Taproot signing math instead of computing fresh Taproot-specific hashes. Because Taproot and SegWit use different hashing rules, this could lead to an invalid signature or, in some edge cases, a signature that does not match what the Bitcoin network expects. The fix creates separate Taproot hash fields so the two paths no longer share state.

Recommended action

Users should upgrade to the firmware version containing this commit before signing Taproot transactions, especially transactions that mix SegWit and Taproot inputs. Developers should audit other shared-state caches in the PSBT module for similar cross-script-type contamination.

Security signals we found

01

Incorrect cryptographic hash reuse across different signing modes

02

Violation of BIP-341 Taproot sighash semantics

03

Potential for invalid or malleable Taproot transaction signatures

04

State contamination between SegWit and Taproot PSBT processing

Risk score

Why this scored 71/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 22/30
Exploitability 16/25
Stealth signal 12/15
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.