AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 34 Bitcoin

fix: add ltc native xpub to parse context

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by soralit

57/100 · Thin
fix: add ltc native xpub to parse context
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Uses a recognizable type or scope! No meaningful explanatory body
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit fixes a bug in the Keystone 3 hardware wallet firmware where Litecoin (LTC) transactions using the newer Native SegWit address format (path m/84'/2'/0') could not be properly parsed or verified. The fix adds the missing LTC Native SegWit extended public key (xpub) to the list of keys used when decoding transaction data. Without this key, the device might fail to recognize the user's own addresses in a transaction, which could lead to incorrect display, signing failures, or in a worst-case scenario, tricking the user about where funds are going. The change is small and appears to be a straightforward missing-key fix rather than a full security patch.

Recommended action

Review the declared size of the public_keys/keys array to ensure it has room for the new LTC Native SegWit entry and that no buffer overflow or truncation occurs. Verify that the Rust parser consumes all entries correctly and that no other BIP44/BIP49/BIP84/BIP86 paths for LTC or other coins are missing. Test signing and display of LTC Native SegWit transactions end-to-end, including change output detection. Consider whether this fix should be treated as a security-relevant firmware update and communicated to users who rely on LTC Native SegWit.

Security signals we found

01

Missing extended public key for a supported coin/derivation path in transaction parsing context

02

Potential address ownership misidentification for LTC Native SegWit (BIP84) transactions

03

UI/display layer dependency on incomplete key list for transaction verification

04

No explicit bounds check visible in the diff; patch assumes array has capacity for the extra element

Risk score

Why this scored 34/100

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