AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 35 Bitcoin

fix(gui): guard checkbox handlers against clicks on non-checkbox children

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Daira-Emma Hopwood

85/100 · Strong
fix(gui): guard checkbox handlers against clicks on non-checkbox children

SelectCheckBoxHandler in gui_create_share_widgets.c and
gui_single_phrase_widgets.c could be called with a non-checkbox
target (e.g. a label or other child of the hint box). Add a type
check to return early if the clicked object is not a checkbox.

Co-authored-by: Daira-Emma Hopwood <daira@jacaranda.org>
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Uses a recognizable type or scope✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit fixes a user-interface bug in the Keystone 3 hardware wallet firmware. A screen that lets users pick options from checkboxes could crash or behave incorrectly if the user tapped on a label or other non-checkbox element inside the same area. The fix adds a simple safety check so the code only reacts when a real checkbox is tapped. It is a defensive hardening change rather than a clear exploit, but in a wallet firmware any UI crash during seed-phrase or share creation could be security-relevant because it might interrupt a sensitive backup workflow.

Recommended action

Treat as a low-risk hardening fix. Review whether the same pattern exists in other checkbox handlers across the firmware, and confirm that the active_id index cannot be manipulated to reference an invalid child. No urgent user action is indicated unless the vendor releases a security advisory.

Security signals we found

01

Defensive type validation added to event handler

02

Potential NULL pointer / type confusion in UI callback

03

Affected UI flows involve seed phrase and shamir share creation

04

No explicit security disclosure or CVE referenced in commit

Risk score

Why this scored 35/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 5/25
Stealth signal 6/15
Affected reach 7/15
Confidence 6/10
Evidence quality 3/5
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.