在Ledger钱包的以太坊应用中发现交易替换漏洞

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-28Last updated on 2026-08-28

Abstract

硬件钱包制造商Ledger的Ethereum应用程序(版本1.22.1)中被发现存在一个交易替换漏洞。2026年8月27日,OneKey创始人Yishi Wang称其安全团队在实验室环境下成功演示了该攻击。漏洞源于交易在设备屏幕上显示的逻辑与交易缓冲区处理之间存在“竞争条件”,使得攻击者能在用户查看并确认一笔合法交易(A)时,暗中替换并让设备签署另一笔不同的交易(B)。 同日,Ledger旗下安全团队Donjon回应称,没有真实用户受到影响,该漏洞已在内部安全流程中发现并修复。研究社区指出,此漏洞与研究员TestMachine于8月22日公开披露的问题一致。 根据Ledger在8月27日发布的安全公告LSB 023,该漏洞属于输入/输出处理缺陷,位于Ledger Secure SDK中,允许主机在用户查看交易后、实际签名前发送新的APDU命令覆盖待签名数据。修复分两步进行:Ethereum应用在8月13日发布的1.22.2版本中修复;SDK层面则在8月21日发布的v26.6.1版本中修复。Ledger强调用户需通过Ledger Live将应用更新至最新版(至少1.22.3),仅更新固件不足以保证安全。 各方对于漏洞具体在哪一版本被修复(1.22.2或1.22.3)存在细微分歧,但均敦促用户立即更新。分析认为,此类显示与签名间的“竞争条件”漏洞揭示了硬件钱包安全依赖于固件、SDK和应用整个链条的协同,任一环节的缺陷都可能危及整体安全。同时,应用与SDK分开更新的模式可能带来潜在的安全窗口期风险。

硬件钱包制造商兼OneKey应用开发者OneKey公司的创始人王一石于2026年8月27日在社交平台X上表示,OneKey Anzen团队在实验室条件下成功对Ledger版本1.22.1的以太坊应用进行了交易替换攻击。Ledger的子公司Donjon于2026年8月27日在同一社交平台回应称,没有硬件钱包用户因此受到影响,所述情况是对一个已修复漏洞的实验室演示。

据王一石称,发现的问题存在于设备屏幕交易显示逻辑与交易缓冲区之间的竞态条件。攻击者能够在用户查看屏幕上合法操作的同时,覆写等待签名的交易。最终导致屏幕上显示交易A,用户确认的也是它,但设备实际签名的却是用户未曾看到的完全不同的交易B。为了验证攻击,OneKey团队自行编译了版本1.22.1的ELF文件。王一石指出,Ledger已在应用程序版本1.22.3中修复了该漏洞,并建议持有旧版本的用户进行更新。

在其帖子的社区评论中澄清,发现的错误与研究员TestMachine于2026年8月22日公开披露的漏洞相符,并且Ledger实际上在版本1.22.2而非1.22.3中就已修复了它。

TestMachine的披露

研究员TestMachine于2026年8月22日报告称,该漏洞是其离线扫描工具Azimuth在检查Ledger以太坊应用时发现的。该错误在Flex设备上得到确认,受影响的是一段通用的APDU命令处理和接口代码,该代码也用于Nano X、Nano S Plus、Stax和Apex型号。在发布时,修复后的版本1.22.2尚未发布。两天后,即8月24日,TestMachine注意到GitHub上出现了标记为「安全修复」的1.22.2版本,并建议用户通过Ledger Live更新应用。

Ledger Donjon的立场

据Donjon声明,没有记录到真实用户被攻击的案例。该问题是在内部安全流程中发现的,并在2026年8月13日发布的1.22.2版本中已修复,即在OneKey发帖之前。公司未找到该漏洞在现实中被利用的证据。建议用户将应用程序更新至最新版本,以太坊应用至少更新至1.22.3版本,并通过Ledger Wallet更新,并务必在设备本身上核对应用程序的确切版本。

官方安全公告LSB 023

在2026年8月27日发布的官方Ledger安全公告LSB 023中描述了此类漏洞:当用户在屏幕上查看操作时,主机设备可能在未处理完前一条命令的情况下发送新的APDU命令,从而允许在参数已显示给用户之后、但在实际签名之前更改签名参数。该缺陷存在于Ledger Secure SDK的输入输出处理中,而非设备的操作系统或固件中。

修复分两个阶段进行:

  • 在单个应用层面——以太坊版本1.22.2最先更新,于2026年8月13日发布;
  • 在SDK层面——版本v26.6.1于2026年8月21日发布,之后应用程序基于更新后的框架重新构建。

公司强调,仅更新固件是不够的——用户需要通过Ledger Live更新应用程序。Ledger重申,未发现针对用户利用此漏洞的证据。

GitHub发布的时间线

在GitHub的LedgerHQ/app-ethereum仓库中显示,版本1.22.2的发布日期为2026年8月24日,备注为「安全修复」;版本1.22.3的发布日期为2026年8月26日,包含一系列与明文签名机制及其他交易处理路径相关的额外修复。

OneKey与Ledger Donjon之间的评估差异主要在于修复漏洞的版本是1.22.2还是1.22.3。双方均认同用户应通过Ledger Live将以太坊应用更新至最新版本。

AI观点

从机器数据分析的角度看,关于版本1.22.2与1.22.3的争论不如所发现错误本身的类型重要——即屏幕显示与实际交易签名之间的竞态条件。此类逻辑漏洞不仅存在于Ledger应用中:类似的信任链问题也曾出现在其他硬件钱包中,例如Coldcard钱包中随机数生成器级别的缺陷导致了可预测的密钥和数亿美元的损失。这种情况说明了一个普遍原则:硬件钱包的安全性并非依赖于单一环节——固件、SDK或应用程序——而是依赖于所有组件构成的整个链条,任何一环的断裂都会使其他保护措施失效。

讨论中未提及的一个技术细节是:像以太坊应用和Ledger Secure SDK这样分离的应用程序与SDK更新周期,会形成一个窗口期,此时生态系统的一部分已受到保护,而另一部分尚未保护。如果此类窗口期被发现的速度快于制造商修复的速度,将会发生什么?

end-content

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

Q根据文章,在Ledger的Ethereum应用中发现了一个什么类型的漏洞?

A该漏洞是一个‘状态竞争’漏洞,具体发生在交易数据显示在设备屏幕上的逻辑和交易本身缓冲区之间。攻击者可以在用户查看合法交易详情的同时,用另一笔恶意交易覆盖待签名的原始交易。

Q根据Ledger Donjon的说法,这个漏洞是在哪个版本被修复的?而OneKey的创始人Yishi Wang最初推荐更新到哪个版本?

A根据Ledger Donjon的说法,该漏洞在版本1.22.2中已被修复(发布日期为2026年8月13日)。而OneKey创始人Yishi Wang最初建议用户更新到版本1.22.3。

Q文章中提到的安全研究团队OneKey Anzen是如何验证这个漏洞的存在?

AOneKey Anzen团队为了验证漏洞,自行编译(或‘自行组装’)了Ethereum应用版本1.22.1的ELF文件,并在实验室环境下成功复现了攻击,演示了交易被替换的过程。

Q该漏洞的根源在于技术堆栈的哪个部分?

A根据Ledger官方安全公告(LSB 023),该缺陷存在于Ledger Secure SDK的输入/输出处理逻辑中,而不是设备的操作系统或固件层面。

Q文章‘意见’部分引用了AI的观点,其中提到Ledger之外其他硬件钱包也曾出现过哪种类似的安全问题?

AAI观点中提到,其他硬件钱包(例如Coldcard)也出现过类似的安全性问题,其漏洞在于硬件钱包的真随机数生成器存在缺陷,导致了可预测的私钥,并造成了数亿美元的损失。这说明了硬件钱包的安全依赖于从SDK、应用到固件的整个组件链条。

Related Reads

Wash's Jackson Hole Debut: Bidding Farewell to 'Forward Guidance', Reshaping Fed Discipline Amidst the Squeeze Between AI and Inflation

In his first Jackson Hole speech, new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh signaled a significant shift in monetary policy communication. He declared that "forward guidance," a tool heavily used since the financial crisis, has outlived its usefulness in normal times and should be retired. He cautioned that over-reliance on it can distort market signals and constrain the Fed's flexibility. Instead, Warsh emphasized a return to data-dependence and decision-making discipline. Warsh outlined seven key principles to guide policy: anchoring the 2% inflation target, pursuing the employment mandate, using short-term rates as the primary tool, acknowledging the importance of money, and maintaining purposeful, restrained communication. He stressed that policy should focus on trends, not single data points. On the current economic outlook, Warsh noted that the labor market is consistent with full employment but inflation remains "far above" the Fed's target. He highlighted that over half of the PCE basket's components are still rising above 3% annually. While acknowledging AI's transformative potential for productivity and capital allocation, he admitted its full economic impact remains uncertain and is not a factor in current policy decisions. His core message was a commitment to policy discipline rather than pre-set decisions. Warsh stated the Fed's primary focus must be on restoring price stability, vowing, "We still have work to do," until there is clear evidence inflation is moving decisively toward 2%. He concluded by framing effective monetary policy as crucial for economic prosperity and U.S. global leadership.

Odaily星球日报5m ago

Wash's Jackson Hole Debut: Bidding Farewell to 'Forward Guidance', Reshaping Fed Discipline Amidst the Squeeze Between AI and Inflation

Odaily星球日报5m ago

A Major Bitcoin Developer Presents a Quantum Defense Scheme. What's the Essence

Blockstream, a major Bitcoin solutions developer, has introduced a draft proposal for a new quantum-resistant digital signature scheme called SHRINCS. The scheme aims to protect Bitcoin transactions from potential attacks by quantum computers while aiming to maintain network throughput. This marks the second technical proposal for Bitcoin quantum defense in recent days, following a similar initiative from StarkWare. A quantum attack on blockchain typically involves deriving a private key from a public one. Currently considered computationally infeasible, quantum algorithms could potentially solve this problem far more efficiently. This threat presents two primary scenarios: an attacker could target addresses where the public key is already exposed, or intercept a transaction before it is confirmed, extract the public key, derive the private key, and replace the transaction. Blockstream's SHRINCS is designed to counter the latter, "in-flight" attack scenario. The SHRINCS signature is built upon the SHA-256 hash function, the same one already used in Bitcoin mining, allowing developers to leverage well-tested, familiar mechanisms. A key design goal was to preserve network capacity. Blockstream estimates Bitcoin could process about three transactions per second using SHRINCS, compared to the current rate of roughly seven, noting that some alternative quantum-resistant schemes could reduce throughput to as low as 0.36 transactions per second. Currently, the security proof for SHRINCS is pending, and the software has not been audited or deemed ready for production. However, Blockstream conducted tests with such transactions on its Liquid sidechain in March. Over the past year, Bitcoin developers have been actively exploring paths to migrate to post-quantum cryptography, a priority across the broader crypto market, underscored by significant investments into securing the leading cryptocurrency.

cryptonews.ru1h ago

A Major Bitcoin Developer Presents a Quantum Defense Scheme. What's the Essence

cryptonews.ru1h ago

Who is legally liable when an AI agent goes rogue?

When autonomous AI agents behave unpredictably and cause harm, determining legal liability is complex. Currently, there is no specific federal AI agent liability law, so existing legal frameworks are applied. The AI agent itself cannot be held liable, as it is not a legal entity. Liability typically falls on the "developer" (the maker of the AI) or the "deployer" (the user), depending on the facts and circumstances. A negligence analysis under standard tort law may apply. For instance, if a deployer gives a reckless instruction, such as demanding quick money without safety parameters, they could face significant liability, including potential criminal charges under statutes like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The situation is complicated by open-source models, where licenses often disclaim liability, and by the unclear division of responsibility between developers and deployers. An analogy is drawn to self-driving car accidents, where both the manufacturer and the human operator can share fault. In cases of severe harm, such as using AI to create bioweapons, liability for developers depends on jurisdiction; the EU's AI Act imposes responsibilities, while U.S. law offers less clear grounds, similar to platforms being shielded for user-generated content under Section 230. Even if Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is achieved, the expert argues against making AGI itself a legally liable entity, as it lacks personhood, assets, or a meaningful way to provide remedy for harm. Instead, accountability should rest with the responsible human or corporate entities behind the technology.

cointelegraph1h ago

Who is legally liable when an AI agent goes rogue?

cointelegraph1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片