AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 40 Bitcoin

pset: handle signing pset

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Jamie C. Driver

35/100 · Opaque
pset: handle signing pset
✓ Descriptive subject! No meaningful explanatory body! Opaque security-relevant change
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit changes the Blockstream Jade hardware wallet firmware so it can now sign Liquid/Elements PSET transactions instead of rejecting them. It also adds a check that the PSBT type matches the selected network (Bitcoin vs. Liquid). A new FIXME comment asks whether Bitcoin signing should only accept 'non-witness utxo' data, and descriptor-based wallet signing is disabled for Elements. The change is a feature addition with some defensive tightening, not a clear vulnerability fix, but it touches security-critical signing code.

Recommended action

Treat this as a notable change in security-critical code. Review the PSET parsing and signing path for Liquid-specific edge cases, ensure the new network/type mismatch check cannot be bypassed, resolve the FIXME about non-witness UTXO requirements, and verify descriptor-disabled handling does not fall back to unsafe defaults. Request additional commits, tests, or a security note from the vendor before concluding it is safe.

Security signals we found

01

Feature expansion: enables signing of Elements/Liquid PSETs, increasing attack surface for a previously unsupported transaction format

02

New consistency check: rejects when PSBT Elements flag mismatches the network's Liquid status

03

FIXME comment added about potentially requiring non-witness UTXO for Bitcoin inputs, suggesting an open security/design question

04

Descriptor-based wallet path explicitly disabled for Elements with a NOTE comment

05

Change is small (+7/-5) and partial; it does not include tests or full documentation of PSET security assumptions

Risk score

Why this scored 40/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 12/30
Exploitability 8/25
Stealth signal 5/15
Affected reach 7/15
Confidence 5/10
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.