AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 12 Bitcoin

Add various tests with client tampering

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Salvatore Ingala

55/100 · Thin
Add various tests with client tampering
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Mentions testing or verification! No meaningful explanatory body
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit only adds new unit tests that simulate a malicious or buggy companion app sending bad data to the Ledger device. It does not change the actual security code being tested. The tests check that the device-side functions correctly reject corrupted Merkle proofs, wrong leaf indices, bad preimage lengths, and interrupted communications. Because no production code is modified, the commit itself does not introduce or fix a vulnerability; it improves test coverage for existing defensive behavior.

Recommended action

No immediate action required. Review the new tests to confirm they accurately model the protocol threats and that the tested functions are indeed used in production code paths. Consider whether additional tampering scenarios (e.g., truncated responses, swapped Merkle proof sides, replayed responses) should also be covered.

Security signals we found

01

Adds adversarial unit tests simulating a malicious client

02

Tests rejection of corrupted Merkle proof sibling hashes and leaf hashes

03

Tests rejection of malformed proof metadata (proof_size, n_proof_elements, element_len)

04

Tests rejection of corrupted preimage data and continuation chunks

05

Tests rejection of out-of-bounds/wrong leaf index claims

06

Tests rejection of invalid preimage length fields and more-bytes-than-remaining

07

Tests handling of simulated communication failures during multi-message transfers

Risk score

Why this scored 12/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 0/30
Exploitability 0/25
Stealth signal 0/15
Affected reach 0/15
Confidence 8/10
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.