AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 14 Bitcoin

feat(common/protobuf): integrate EIP-7702 delegation into `EthereumSignTxEIP1559`

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Roman Zeyde

62/100 · Adequate
feat(common/protobuf): integrate EIP-7702 delegation into `EthereumSignTxEIP1559`

[no changelog]
✓ Specific, 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 only changes the data format definitions (protobuf messages) used to talk to a Trezor hardware wallet. It adds new optional fields for an upcoming Ethereum feature called EIP-7702, which lets an account temporarily act like a smart contract. The commit does not contain any actual signing logic, user confirmation screens, or security checks. Because it is just a protocol definition update, it does not by itself create a vulnerability, but it is a building block for future code that will handle these authorizations.

Recommended action

No immediate action is required for this commit alone. Treat it as a protocol-schema feature addition. When reviewing follow-up commits that implement EIP-7702 signing, pay close attention to: user confirmation of the delegate address, chain_id and nonce validation, replay protection, correct RLP/SSZ encoding, and whether the all-zero delegate case truly revokes delegation.

Security signals we found

01

New experimental protocol fields for EIP-7702 delegation added to Ethereum transaction messages

02

Legacy firmware explicitly ignores the new fields (FT_IGNORE), limiting exposure

03

No signing, validation, or user-confirmation logic is present in the diff

04

EIP-7702 delegation can authorize an EOA to execute code from another address, which is security-sensitive in general

05

The commit is tagged [no changelog] and marked as a feature, not a security fix

Risk score

Why this scored 14/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 2/30
Exploitability 2/25
Stealth signal 2/15
Affected reach 3/15
Confidence 3/10
Evidence quality 2/5
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.