AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 39 Bitcoin

feat(ethereum): definition request mechanism

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Ioan Bizău

57/100 · Thin
feat(ethereum): definition request mechanism

[no changelog]
✓ 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 adds a new feature to Trezor Ethereum signing that lets the device ask the connected computer or phone for extra token/contract display information during a transaction. It is a feature addition (not a direct bug fix), so it mainly changes how the wallet and device talk to each other. There is no clear security vulnerability visible in the diff, but any new request/response protocol introduces places where a malicious or buggy host could supply misleading data, and the device must carefully validate what it receives. The commit does not itself describe a security issue or credit a researcher.

Recommended action

Treat this as a feature commit requiring security review of the definition-request flow. Review how returned definitions are parsed, validated, and authenticated before being used for transaction display or amount formatting. Ensure the device cannot be tricked into showing a fake token symbol/decimal or a misleading display format. Verify that the host callback cannot inject data that bypasses existing safety checks (e.g., unlimited-amount warnings).

Security signals we found

01

New wire protocol messages added (EthereumDefinitionRequest / EthereumDefinitionAck)

02

Device now accepts externally supplied token/network definitions and display formats mid-signing

03

Host-side callback (definition_provider) can return arbitrary definitions

04

Renamed display-format field from ERC-7730-specific to generic 'display format'

05

Legacy firmware excludes the new messages via SKIPPED_MESSAGES

06

No visible validation of returned definitions in the diff

Risk score

Why this scored 39/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 8/30
Exploitability 7/25
Stealth signal 6/15
Affected reach 9/15
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.