Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Wallet private keys shown without requesting password #6006

Closed
w0000000t opened this issue Jan 28, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6021
Closed

Wallet private keys shown without requesting password #6006

w0000000t opened this issue Jan 28, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #6021

Comments

@w0000000t
Copy link
Contributor

Description

In Account > Wallet info > Show raw details and private keys, the user has access to private keys and to copy everything to clipboard (!) without any request for wallet password, nor notification about the dangers of copying to clipboard any sensitive wallet info

Version

1.8.2

Steps to reproduce

Unlock wallet with password after starting Bisq, go to Account > Wallet seed and verify how it will ask for password to show the seed.
Do not enter password.
Go to Account > Wallet info, and push "Show raw wallet[...]", click on checkbox to show private keys, then click on "copy to clipboard".
No request for password, nor any notification about the dangers of clipboard, is shown.

Expected behaviour

Request for password in order to show private keys. Big red dialogue about copying anything to clipboard, especially if containing private keys, especially if someone asked you to.

Actual behaviour

As per Description.

Screenshots

Device or machine

Windows 10

Additional info

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 28, 2022

Existing discussions related to that are in #5152, #5276 and #5398. I guess this issue had dropped off my radar. Thanks for the reminder.

FYI there's also this list of unresolved issues which I try to keep updated.

@w0000000t
Copy link
Contributor Author

Oh, got it, when I noticed it I thought that, had someone already reported it, it would have definitely been fixed 😅
Should I close this thread then, as it's a duplicate?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant