CommitWatch RSS
AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 28 Bitcoin

fix(python): restore `TrezorClient.cancel()` behaviour

TZ0edb43ec View source ↗
Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Roman Zeyde

77/100 · Adequate
fix(python): restore `TrezorClient.cancel()` behaviour

It should only send `messages.Cancel()`, so the main flow will receive the `ActionCancelled` failure.

[no changelog]
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Uses a recognizable type or scope✓ Provides an explanatory body
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit fixes a behavior quirk in the Python Trezor client library's cancel() method. Previously, calling cancel() on a TrezorClient object would use a session-level cancel that swallowed the Cancelled exception, which could hide the fact that the operation was cancelled from the main application flow. The fix makes cancel() simply send a Cancel message and lets the normal flow receive the ActionCancelled failure. This is a library-side correctness fix; it does not appear to be a security vulnerability in the hardware wallet firmware itself.

Recommended action

No immediate security action required. Treat as a normal bugfix / behavior restoration in the Python client library. Reviewers may verify that downstream callers of TrezorClient.cancel() now correctly observe ActionCancelled/Failure responses.

Security signals we found

01

Behavior correction in client library cancel handling

02

No firmware or cryptographic code changed

03

No privilege escalation, buffer overflow, or authentication bypass present in diff

04

Test coverage expanded for both session and client cancel paths

Risk score

Why this scored 28/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 5/30
Exploitability 5/25
Stealth signal 5/15
Affected reach 5/15
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.

More from Trezor firmware

Related watches

Low 27 AI analysisMessage 93 · Strong
TZ TrezorTrezor firmware BitcoinHardware wallets

refactor(core): digest EIP-1559/EIP-7702 magic without RLP encoding

This commit is a small internal cleanup in Trezor's Ethereum signing code. It changes how two special 'magic' bytes (the transaction type markers for newer Ethereum transaction formats) are fed into the cryptographic hash. Previously the c…

Refactor of cryptographic hashing path for Ethereum transaction signingRemoval of implicit assumption that RLP encodes small integers as single bytesChange affects EIP-1559 and EIP-7702 transaction type markers
2362bc6fby Roman Zeyde+6−32 files
No security note in commit
Open full analysis →Source commit ↗
Informational 15 AI analysisMessage 98 · Strong
TZ TrezorTrezor firmware BitcoinHardware wallets

test(core): test RLP self-encoding bytestrings

This commit only adds a new unit test to the Trezor firmware codebase. It verifies that very short Ethereum RLP-encoded byte strings and small positive integers encode to themselves, which is a known property of the RLP specification. No p…

41538733by Roman Zeyde+16−01 file
No security note in commit
Open full analysis →Source commit ↗
Informational 18 AI analysisMessage 57 · Thin
TZ TrezorTrezor firmware BitcoinHardware wallets

chore(core): remove sha1 from regular FW

This commit removes the SHA-1 hashing function from the regular Trezor firmware. SHA-1 is an old, weak hash algorithm that is no longer considered secure for sensitive uses. The change deletes the code that exposes SHA-1 to apps running on…

Removal of a deprecated cryptographic primitive (SHA-1) from the firmware API surfaceReduction of attack surface and prevention of future misuse of a collision-vulnerable hashNo direct vulnerability patch or memory-safety bug is present in the diff
16d15774by M1nd3r+0−2006 files
No security note in commit
Open full analysis →Source commit ↗