guitarplinker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1694
Merit: 1024
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 26, 2015, 08:04:38 PM |
|
Is MyTrezor down for anyone else right now? I can't seem to load up the site right now. :/
|
|
|
|
gweedo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 26, 2015, 08:31:59 PM |
|
Is MyTrezor down for anyone else right now? I can't seem to load up the site right now. :/
Confirmed, cloudfare says it is down.
|
|
|
|
windpath
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 26, 2015, 08:53:30 PM |
|
Is MyTrezor down for anyone else right now? I can't seem to load up the site right now. :/
Confirmed, cloudfare says it is down. Working fine for me...
|
|
|
|
guitarplinker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1694
Merit: 1024
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 26, 2015, 09:19:12 PM |
|
Yeah, it seems to be back up for me as well now.
|
|
|
|
Italone100
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 10:15:05 AM |
|
Error! Failed to send transaction: Encountered invalid prevhash.
why?
|
|
|
|
rammy2k2
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1974
Merit: 1003
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 02, 2015, 08:39:00 PM |
|
Error! Failed to send transaction: Encountered invalid prevhash.
why?
keep us updated on this one, i just got my trezor too
|
|
|
|
nelisky
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 03, 2015, 10:31:13 PM Last edit: March 03, 2015, 11:34:14 PM by nelisky |
|
Error! Failed to send transaction: Encountered invalid prevhash.
why?
I'm trying to send a Litecoin transaction using python-trezor and I'm getting the exact same error. Looking at the trezor-mcu code I find that it is sent here: https://github.com/trezor/trezor-mcu/blob/master/firmware/signing.c#L349 but I didn't debug it to understand what is going on. Could be a byte order thing or I just didn't put the right prev_hash to start with, not sure. For reference I'm sending the only output of this tx: https://bchain.info/LTC/tx/3635c6b4ddb52a669a5db11e1a599d9149f18e803c178653c05d9e804afa4f57So I do a TxInputType(address_n=client.expand_path(path to LS7CBRe81UbZJLjMG5p7gLB3DbgV2rNZ5q), prev_hash=binascii.unhexlify('3635c6b4ddb52a669a5db11e1a599d9149f18e803c178653c05d9e804afa4f57'), prev_index=0) which I guess is what I'm supposed to provide, but in my obvious diagonal reading of both python-trezor and trezor-mcu, it looks like the comparison is being make with the txhash of the first input of that transaction (though I may be completely off-base here, I'll have to compile trezor-mcu myself to add some debugging if no help comes my way) Any clues or pointers? EDIT: I finally found the problem I was having and it goes down to a bug in python-trezor's tx_api.insight_url. Well, maybe it doesn't reflect on every OS the same way but doing Decimal(value_as_float) is very dangerous and error prone in python, so I'll be getting a pull request ready.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 05, 2015, 03:23:06 PM |
|
Does myTrezor.com identify the specific unit that connects to it thus deanonymizing the owner that it was shipped to?
Also, I've not heard of any hacking incidents to date of the Trezor. Anyone else?
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 05, 2015, 03:43:44 PM |
|
Also, I've not heard of any hacking incidents to date of the Trezor. Anyone else?
Some exploits have been found and patched even better. the power of open source.
|
|
|
|
cor
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 05, 2015, 06:48:21 PM |
|
Does myTrezor.com identify the specific unit that connects to it thus deanonymizing the owner that it was shipped to?
Also, I've not heard of any hacking incidents to date of the Trezor. Anyone else?
No, there is nothing in the device neither the code that we could use to link a specific person with a device.
|
|
|
|
2112
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1073
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 05, 2015, 07:07:52 PM |
|
No, there is nothing in the device neither the code that we could use to link a specific person with a device.
I easily believe that there's nothing in your code that would be designed for tracking. But do I think that NXP doesn't leave something traceable in the device itself? Do they document every bit of the JTAG state? Is there any open, published source that would confirm that their SoC devices aren't traceable?
|
|
|
|
cor
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 05, 2015, 07:24:44 PM |
|
No, there is nothing in the device neither the code that we could use to link a specific person with a device.
I easily believe that there's nothing in your code that would be designed for tracking. But do I think that NXP doesn't leave something traceable in the device itself? Do they document every bit of the JTAG state? Is there any open, published source that would confirm that their SoC devices aren't traceable? The devices are produced and packed in batches. Even if there was some unique code embeded on the hardware, we would need to have a unique number on the package associated with it. there is no such code on the package of Trezor.
|
|
|
|
cor
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 05, 2015, 07:29:27 PM |
|
No, there is nothing in the device neither the code that we could use to link a specific person with a device.
I easily believe that there's nothing in your code that would be designed for tracking. But do I think that NXP doesn't leave something traceable in the device itself? Do they document every bit of the JTAG state? Is there any open, published source that would confirm that their SoC devices aren't traceable? The devices are produced and packed in batches. Even if there was some unique code embeded on the hardware, we would need to have a unique number on the package associated with it. there is no such code on the package of Trezor. just to add there is a small QR code on the internals that identifies the production batch so we know which components and processes were used to produce it. For RMA processing.
|
|
|
|
2112
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2128
Merit: 1073
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 05, 2015, 07:42:58 PM |
|
The devices are produced and packed in batches. Even if there was some unique code embeded on the hardware, we would need to have a unique number on the package associated with it. there is no such code on the package of Trezor.
I trust you and I'm not claiming that you are trying to track the users of Trezor. (Plural "you", meaning "your company and associates", not "you personally"). I'm more interested on the possibility of correlation attacks done by somebody else on the users of Trezors, especially those users willing to connect the Trezor to a non-trusted and not-verified computer. I'll repeat my question: Is there any publicly available information or speculation about the SoC chips you use that would either exclude or confirm the presence of undocumented storage? IIRC the devices you use support "USB on-the-go" which is a fairly complex protocol. Do you even heard any substantiated rumors about the undocumented features of your chips. I've worked with some much older SoC chips where it turned out that OTPROM and ROM memory was in reality just EEPROM protected against write by convoluted trickery in the software drivers (can't recall the exact manufacturer at this time, later acquired by Rainbow Technologies).
|
|
|
|
Italone100
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 06, 2015, 03:53:26 PM |
|
please process my ticket for invalid prev hash
|
|
|
|
BitcoinIsLiberty
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 55
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 06, 2015, 05:31:26 PM |
|
Does myTrezor.com identify the specific unit that connects to it thus deanonymizing the owner that it was shipped to?
Also, I've not heard of any hacking incidents to date of the Trezor. Anyone else?
No, there is nothing in the device neither the code that we could use to link a specific person with a device. Is the public key protected by PIN or confirmation preventing rogue websites from stealing it? Having your public key leaked would link all your transactions for the life of the seed.
|
|
|
|
|
jackbox
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1024
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 07, 2015, 04:21:15 AM |
|
They already answered this. If there is an device id (such as cpu serial number) they do not store it anywhere. The Trezors are shipped blind. They put them in the box and glue them like fantatics and there is nothing on the box to indicate which Trezor is inside except a sticker denoting the color of the unit's plastic case. The cannot track you by any Trezor they sent you as they do not know who got sent which device. They only now how many physical units they have shipped to you.
|
|
|
|
lyth0s
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
World Class Cryptonaire
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 07, 2015, 04:49:13 AM |
|
So I tried the Trezor with the Electrum 2.0 wallet today and it worked like a charm. Glad to see another wallet service that has implemented the Trezor successfully. I'd like to see if you guys could make any progress with getting Mycelium or Wallet32 to implement it next ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
|
|
|
molecular
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 07, 2015, 11:24:38 AM |
|
So I tried the Trezor with the Electrum 2.0 wallet today and it worked like a charm. Glad to see another wallet service that has implemented the Trezor successfully. I'd like to see if you guys could make any progress with getting Mycelium or Wallet32 to implement it next ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) you should probably ask mycelium and wallet32 devs.
|
PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0 3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
|
|
|
|