AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 42 Bitcoin

feat: allow staking calls regardless of source

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Ioan Bizău

57/100 · Thin
feat: allow staking calls regardless of source
✓ 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 change removes a safety check in Trezor's Ethereum staking transaction handling. Previously, the device refused to sign staking/unstaking transactions unless a 'source' parameter was exactly 1 (Trezor's identifier). Now it accepts any source value. This is described by the vendor as a feature to allow staking calls regardless of source, but it weakens a validation gate that helped ensure the transaction was intended for Trezor's staking flow. The change is intentional and documented, but it reduces the device's ability to reject potentially mismatched or unexpected staking contract calls based on source identifier.

Recommended action

Treat as a deliberate product change rather than a vulnerability, but review whether removing the source identifier check could allow users to be tricked into signing staking-shaped transactions intended for a different wallet/provider or contract. If the source field was a meaningful safety boundary, consider reintroducing it as a user-visible warning or requiring explicit opt-in. Ensure the staking contract address whitelist and function-signature checks remain strict, since the source check is no longer a fallback.

Security signals we found

01

Validation gate removed: explicit source==1 check eliminated in both firmware implementations

02

Behavior change is intentional and vendor-documented via changelog fragments

03

Test cases that previously expected failure now expect success for source != 1

04

Remaining argument count and alignment checks are preserved

05

No independent security advisory, CVE, or researcher attribution present in commit materials

Risk score

Why this scored 42/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 6/25
Stealth signal 7/15
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.