3 ms·

I think the presence of any connection and data transfer is more important than the physical layout of the hardware. Compare, for example, baseband exploits.

• lxgr 4y ago
  Baseband exploits are as devastating as they are because at least until a few years ago, they've had full SoC memory access and as a result more privileges than even the operating system running on the SoC. Treating the baseband more like a peripheral device and less as a coprocessor can prevent against much of this attack surface. That said, just adding Bluetooth (even given a perfectly isolated stack) opens several unnecessary attack vectors, including a MITM between the wallet and the device driving it. This could be used to e.g. subtly modify destination addresses or transfer amounts.
  • woodruffw 4y ago
    Right. I'm not saying it isn't a reasonable hardening choice, only that it isn't a proof of security. It's table stakes for something claiming to be secure hardware in 2022.
  • leni536 4y ago
    The whole reason of the display on the device is to show both the amount and destination before signing the transaction.
    • lxgr 4y ago
      Yes, a display is essential for the wallet use case. But why make it such a large/complex one, that definitely requires more trusted hardware and software in the validation and confirmation path? Their previous wallets did this much better, in my opinion. The Stax just seems flashy at the expense of security.