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

feat(prodtest): restrict access to 64 MAC-and-destroy slots

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Ondřej Vejpustek

62/100 · Adequate
feat(prodtest): restrict access to 64 MAC-and-destroy slots
✓ 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 tightens access permissions in the Trezor production-test firmware for a secure chip feature called 'MAC-and-destroy' slots. It removes Pairing Key 1's ability to use the first 64 of these one-time slots, leaving only Pairing Key 2 (and in some configurations Pairing Key 3) with access. MAC-and-destroy slots are designed to be permanently destroyed after use, so restricting who can reach them reduces the risk that a less-trusted key could waste or misuse them during manufacturing tests.

Recommended action

Treat as a routine hardening improvement. If this commit is being backported or audited, verify that Pairing Key 1 genuinely does not need MAC-and-destroy slots 0-63 in the factory workflow, and confirm the change is applied consistently across all relevant provisioning configurations and product revisions.

Security signals we found

01

Principle-of-least-privilege hardening for one-time secure-element slots

02

Change is in prodtest (factory/production test) code, not end-user firmware

03

MAC-and-destroy slots are irreversible resources; misuse can permanently exhaust them

04

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

Risk score

Why this scored 42/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 12/30
Exploitability 8/25
Stealth signal 6/15
Affected reach 7/15
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.