Ledger is one of the most secure hardware wallets after recent hack said CZ

[Tamaperdana]

Snip

I also don't know exactly why CZ said something like this, but what is clear is that he probably has his own reasons regarding this. Because if we look at the news about Ledger recently, it is clearly not good. Because many people lost their money in this wallet. So it is clearly a clear indication that although as far as I know Ledger has never been fully hacked by hackers, but with cases like this it is clear that it is a danger signal and it is not the time to say that Ledger is safe.

But yes, this is just my assumption and maybe I could be wrong, but even by someone in my class I can understand that Ledger is currently having problems in its system. So with that, we clearly need to be careful with this and should not just believe any statement issued by anyone, even prominent people. Because the impact can clearly be very dangerous for our assets that we have collected so far.

[SatsPH]

Maybe we can say that this is a isolated incident. And for sure it was not Ledger's fault here, but the supposedly reseller as they are the one that could have tampered it and then sell to the unsuspecting victims.

I'm not sizing with anyone specially CZ, as most of the times he really talk non-sense or just shilling. But there he has a point, however, the Ledger image might have been damage here already. And as much as they do the investigation and found out the root cause, their names has been drag and gonna be hard to recover from it.

[hd49728]

Maybe we can say that this is a isolated incident. And for sure it was not Ledger's fault here, but the supposedly reseller as they are the one that could have tampered it and then sell to the unsuspecting victims.

It's still very scary for users and with whatever operational structures behind Ledger and authorized vendors, if there are something wrong and made users losing money, it's not acceptable.

If it happened with CryptoBillis vendor, it can happen with other vendors and as users you will not know what will happen with your fund if continue buying and using Ledger hardware wallets.

Even if saying it's not Ledger fault, if there are other brands and other choices like Trezor, why do I have to use Ledger after this vendor incident?
Remember that users can lose all their money with one incident and don't have any financial resource for their comebacks. Safety first so it's safest to stop purchasing and using Ledger.

[stompix]

Even if saying it's not Ledger fault, if there are other brands and other choices like Trezor, why do I have to use Ledger after this vendor incident?
Remember that users can lose all their money with one incident and don't have any financial resource for their comebacks. Safety first so it's safest to stop purchasing and using Ledger.

So, because Ledger's wallets were tampered by a vendor, you're going to buy Trezor ....from a vendor?
Like seriously, how do we even know at this point other wallets this vendor sold weren't tampered with in any other way?
How do we know there aren't already tampered wallets from other brands sitting there just waiting for the attacker to drain funds?

[FinneysTrueVision]

CZ is right about it having stood the test of time. Despite all their controversies there are still plenty of people who trust them. I wouldn’t go as far as saying they are one of the most secure. I’m sure there are billions of dollars in crypto being secured by Ledger hardware, but you also have to look at the other side. We hear stories all the time about Ledger users falling victim to exploits or being vulnerable due to design choices made by the company.

Ledger is still closed source and has what some might consider a back door through which your seed can be extracted from the hardware. There are also the database breaches and data collection inside their applications. I would say they are a wallet that will probably work fine for a lot of people, but if you are really conscious about security and privacy, there are better options available.

[Webutxo]

Maybe we can say that this is a isolated incident. And for sure it was not Ledger's fault here, but the supposedly reseller as they are the one that could have tampered it and then sell to the unsuspecting victims.

I'm not sizing with anyone specially CZ, as most of the times he really talk non-sense or just shilling. But there he has a point, however, the Ledger image might have been damage here already. And as much as they do the investigation and found out the root cause, their names has been drag and gonna be hard to recover from it.

Ledger has their own share of fault. A company can't decide to be a distributor if ledger does not approve it and having the approval comes with some level of trust that must have been established before the ship products to them. Not just that, they should have done proper investigation from time to time about some of their distributors just to be sure who is going to do this kind of things, they need to check out which of the company they work with that can damage their reputation like this one just did.

At this point. I'm scared of hardware wallet. What we considered to be the safest place to keep your Bitcoin very safe are becoming the worst place to keep coins are becoming the fearful place. As for CZ, I do not consider him to be that guy again. If everone used to like you and suddenly they hate you, then that means something is wrong, there is something he is doing just like this onr that people don't like and he need to put a stop to his this unnecessary opinions.

[Comeacross]

To me, Cz was right in most of the things he said here. Ledger has suffered many data breaches but let be honest, that doesn't take away the fact that they are one of the oldest and most secure? wallets in the crypto industry. I questioned the secured part too since they failed to keep customer's data safe on several occasions but that doesn't mean their secure element chip is not secured. So far we can tell how the attacks usually happened and it wasn't related to the chip.

Cz is a public figure and you should not expect him to say otherwise. Imagine him coming out to say ledger is not safe and advise people to stay away from it when their own Binance is not safer than ledger. Staying silent is not cool either so he has to be diplomatic because they're running a business.

[Luzin]

In all fairness, what happened wasn't strictly a Ledger wallet hack. Ledger's system wasn't compromised at all. The attack was directed at specific devices coming from a third-party reseller--authorized reseller, if I may emphasize. So, in a way, CZ was right.

I am not trying to defend Ledger, but I have known Ledger since 2019 and since that day there have been no issues regarding asset loss caused purely by Ledger's weaknesses. There are a few cases I remember such as customer data leaks, exploitation of the Ledger Connect Kit, data leaks through the Global-e system, and most recently Cryptobillis. Among these attempts, the most severe was the last one, and this also does not seem to be directly Ledger's fault but rather from their distribution partner. With this situation, I think CZ is not entirely wrong it’s just that the main problem lies with the official reseller under the Ledger company suspected of wrongdoing. Because I do realize that the risk, after leaving the company, of controlling its product will certainly become more difficult. I think this is the weakness present in the distribution network. IMO

[bangjoe]

CZ is right about it having stood the test of time. Despite all their controversies there are still plenty of people who trust them. I wouldn’t go as far as saying they are one of the most secure. I’m sure there are billions of dollars in crypto being secured by Ledger hardware, but you also have to look at the other side. We hear stories all the time about Ledger users falling victim to exploits or being vulnerable due to design choices made by the company.

Ledger is still closed source and has what some might consider a back door through which your seed can be extracted from the hardware. There are also the database breaches and data collection inside their applications. I would say they are a wallet that will probably work fine for a lot of people, but if you are really conscious about security and privacy, there are better options available.

I agree with this, and we have to be fair looking at what happens from the trust base that g has built up a long time ago and the events that make their name bad, regardless of the number of people who are disappointed and lose either their own mistakes or the mistakes of the providers be it partners or what is in the ledger itself it is clear that their name is getting hit by every incident that makes users lose their bitcoins.

There is always a risk of forging storage, and this thought must remain within us as users, even though using other preferred wallets that can still be relied on today, but in the future not necessarily, and this must be realized, we should not be too calm with storage places made by others, if we cannot protect from the worst risks, then we should not store our bitcoins in a basket, and this is a way to minimize the loss of all the bitcoins that we collect once lost.

[Lucius]

Ledger is the biggest risk that exists when it comes to hardware wallets.

For those who are still not aware of the possibility that their devices share seed with third parties, I suggest that you read Ledger Recovery - Send your (encrypted) recovery phrase to 3rd parties entities.

Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of their clients were exposed to phishing, fake calls and SMS messages, mails and even physical attacks because their entire database was leaked in 2020, and we saw something similar happen again not so long ago. This is just one of a series of nonsense that can be read from that criminal - and I have no doubt that he said it because there is some business connection between him and Ledger.

[Alpha Marine]

I'm not a fan of CZ, and I have already stated that he has a lot of questionable characters. But in this case, I don't think he's wrong. He may have ulterior motives, but he's not wrong.
He didn't say Ledger is the most secured, the said it is "one of" the most secure. So he is not wrong. You can't mention secure and reliable hardware wallets without mentioning Ledger.
He also said it has passed the test of time. I believe that is also true. A company that has existed for over 10 years in the crypto space has passed the test of time. Crypto has been around for about 17 years, so for a service or company to be active in 12 out of 17 of those years is impressive.

If CZ truly valued privacy, Binance would never have KYCed. Therefore, privacy is not a factor when claiming the wallet is "secure."

I don't think he values privacy as much as he claims, but in the case of Binance and KYC, did they really have a choice? Would governments and regulatory bodies of different countries have allowed them to do business if they didn't ask for KYC from their customers?