AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 21 Bitcoin

feat(trezorlib, ethereum): trezorctl accepts dev signed contract descriptors

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by PrisionMike

62/100 · Adequate
feat(trezorlib, ethereum): trezorctl accepts dev signed contract descriptors

[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 adds a new debugging option to the Trezor command-line tool (trezorctl) that lets advanced users supply their own ERC-7730 contract descriptors for Ethereum transactions. These descriptors tell the hardware wallet how to display a contract call on its screen. The change is described as a developer/debug feature and does not appear to be a security fix. It could, however, allow a malicious or compromised host computer to trick a user into signing a transaction that looks benign on the device screen while actually doing something harmful on the blockchain.

Recommended action

Treat this as a feature addition rather than a vulnerability, but verify that the firmware-side implementation correctly validates signatures and provenance of ERC-7730 descriptors before displaying them. Host-side code should not be relied upon for security. If the descriptor format allows display of arbitrary text or spoofing of token/network names, ensure the device enforces strict schema and signature checks.

Security signals we found

01

New host-supplied data path into transaction signing flow

02

User-controlled descriptor blob can influence on-device display of contract calls

03

No visible signature/integrity enforcement in the added Python code

04

Feature explicitly documented as debugging/development aid

05

Trust boundary between host and secure device is crossed with attacker-controllable formatting data

Risk score

Why this scored 21/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 2/30
Exploitability 3/25
Stealth signal 4/15
Affected reach 3/15
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.