THE SHORT ANSWER
Start with the specific incident: which product, version and step were affected? Changing brands may not fix the problem. A review needs to consider device provenance, key generation, backups, transaction signing and recovery.
What “the wallet was hacked” can mean
Weak key generation, a tampered device, a fake app and a malicious transaction are different problems. A headline may group them together; a security decision needs to distinguish them.
A disclosed vulnerability does not prove every user of a brand is affected. Model, firmware, device provenance and attack conditions matter. Check the official advisory and the instructions relevant to your setup.
Does updating the firmware fix everything?
Not always. For the July 2026 seed-generation incident, COLDCARD states that updating firmware does not repair a seed already created on affected firmware. Its advisory distinguishes updating from migration. [1]
This is not an instruction to improvise a migration. First establish whether the advisory applies. Copying the same words into another hardware wallet keeps the same underlying keys; it does not create an independent wallet.
Did Ledger, Trezor and Coldcard have the same problem?
No. Official examples show why it matters to read beyond the headline. The table below compares incident types; it does not rank brands from safest to least safe.
| Incident | What was disclosed | What it changes in the review |
|---|---|---|
| COLDCARD · 2026 | Seed generation on affected firmware. | Updating does not repair an already affected seed; check the applicable migration procedure. [1] |
| Ledger · 2026 | Devices tampered with in the resale channel, according to the October response. | Provenance and physical integrity are also part of the review. [2] |
| Trezor · TROPIC01 | Research into one physical layer; the manufacturer states that it alone does not expose the PIN or backup. | Read the conditions and scope rather than concluding every wallet was compromised. [3] |
| Ledger Connect Kit · 2023 | Malicious code in an application-connection library. | Reviewing what you authorize and sign also matters. [5] |
A selection of distinct incidents, checked on 3 November 2026. Not a complete history or an independent manufacturer audit.
Do multisig and a passphrase make everything safer?
They may meet specific needs, but also add decisions and recovery requirements. Multisig does not remove every risk from a compromised computer, incorrect instructions or incomplete backups. A forgotten passphrase can prevent access to the corresponding wallet. [4]
The useful question is: which failures do I need to tolerate, and can I recover this setup without relying on one person? For some people, simplifying and practising will be more useful than adding layers.
What to bring to a guided review
Note the device model, the version you know, where you purchased it and the questions raised by the advisory. Describe whether recovery has been tested and whether other people are involved. Do not send recovery words, PINs, passphrases, backups or screenshots containing wallet data.
At Clavis, I help distinguish what already works, what needs verification and what justifies a change. If implementation is appropriate, we define the sequence, tests and documentation before acting.
TO PREPARE YOUR CONVERSATION
Four points to clarify.
- Identify the incident, product and affected conditions.
- Review how the wallet was created and where the device came from.
- Confirm what recovery requires and whether it has been checked.
- Decide whether to keep, correct or redesign the setup — with a clear procedure.
Sources and editorial approach
Questions were selected from public accounts and official documentation. User accounts inform the questions; technical guidance relies on the sources below. This is qualitative research, not a frequency estimate or an assessment of your wallet.