Listen to this Post
Introduction: A New Chapter in Hardware Wallet Security Concerns
Cryptocurrency hardware wallets are designed around one fundamental promise: private keys stay protected, even when attackers target the physical device. But a recent discovery from security researchers at Ledger’s Donjon team has challenged that assumption by revealing a sophisticated hardware attack against Tangem crypto wallet cards.
The researchers demonstrated that a precisely timed laser pulse aimed at the secure chip inside a Tangem wallet can manipulate the device’s security logic and allow an attacker to reset the wallet password to one of their choosing. The attack does not require the original password, recovery process, or backup card.
However, this is not a typical remote hacking scenario. The technique requires physical possession of the wallet, expensive laboratory equipment, advanced hardware expertise, and permanent damage to the card. For most users, the immediate risk remains extremely low. But for anyone who loses a Tangem card containing significant cryptocurrency holdings, the discovery creates a serious concern because the vulnerability cannot be patched.
Researchers Discover Laser-Based Attack Against Tangem Crypto Wallet Cards
A Physical Attack That Can Take Full Wallet Control
Ledger’s Donjon security researchers have revealed a hardware fault injection attack targeting Tangem crypto wallet cards. By firing a carefully timed laser pulse at the card’s internal secure element chip, researchers were able to interfere with the device’s security checks and force it into a false recovery state.
Once the protection mechanism was bypassed, the attacker could execute the normal password-setting command and create a new password without knowing the previous one.
This means that an attacker holding the physical card could potentially take control of the wallet and move cryptocurrency stored inside.
The attack does not involve malware, phishing, internet exploitation, or remote access. It is a laboratory-level hardware attack that requires direct access to the wallet itself.
How Tangem Wallets Are Designed to Protect Cryptocurrency
The Security Model Behind the Card
Tangem wallets are designed to look and function like ordinary payment cards. Users tap the card against a smartphone, and the companion application communicates with a secure element chip embedded inside.
The card uses a Samsung S3D232A secure element, a specialized security component designed to protect sensitive cryptographic operations. The chip stores the private key controlling the cryptocurrency wallet and prevents the secret material from being extracted directly.
The intended security model relies on two protections:
Possession of the physical card.
Knowledge of the wallet password.
Together, these layers are supposed to prevent unauthorized access even if someone steals the device.
The Hidden Weakness Inside the Password Recovery Process
A Security Check That Became the Target
The vulnerability exists in the way Tangem handles password recovery.
Tangem cards are commonly sold in sets where multiple cards can be linked together. If a user forgets their password, recovery can be performed by combining authorized cards and creating a new password.
During this process, the card checks whether it is currently operating in recovery mode. If the condition is true, the device allows a new password to be created without requiring the old one.
The Donjon team discovered that a laser pulse delivered at the exact moment of this security check could disturb the chip’s internal operation.
Instead of changing stored information directly, the laser temporarily interferes with the chip’s electrical behavior. This causes the verification process to fail and makes the card behave as if it is in recovery mode.
After that security check is bypassed, the attacker can use the normal password-setting function to assign a new password.
The result:
No previous password required.
No second recovery card required.
No legitimate recovery process required.
Why This Attack Is Extremely Difficult in Reality
A Laboratory Weapon, Not an Everyday Hacking Tool
Although the vulnerability sounds alarming, carrying out the attack is far from simple.
The attacker would need:
A physical Tangem card.
Specialized laser fault injection equipment.
Advanced hardware analysis skills.
Precise timing measurements.
Knowledge of the chip architecture.
According to the researchers, the required equipment setup costs around $250,000.
The attacker must also physically open the card and expose the internal chip, leaving visible evidence of tampering.
This means someone cannot secretly compromise a wallet, return it to the owner, and remain undetected.
The process is destructive and requires significant investment.
The Biggest Problem: There Is No Software Patch
Permanent Vulnerability Because Cards Cannot Be Updated
The most important concern is not that the attack exists. The bigger issue is that Tangem cards cannot receive firmware updates.
Tangem has promoted the lack of update capability as a security advantage because attackers cannot remotely modify wallet software.
However, this design also means vulnerabilities discovered after manufacturing cannot be corrected.
Every affected card already sold remains vulnerable to this attack forever.
The flaw cannot be removed through an application update or security patch.
Tangem Responds to the Research Findings
Company Says Practical Risk Is Extremely Low
Tangem responded to the disclosure by arguing that the attack represents a laboratory-only physical technique that applies broadly to secure element technology rather than being unique to Tangem.
The company also highlighted that Ledger’s Donjon team belongs to a competitor in the hardware wallet industry.
Tangem emphasized several practical limitations:
The attacker must physically possess the card.
The card contains no public information about its value.
A stolen card could contain a small amount of cryptocurrency or millions of dollars.
The attacker would need to destroy and analyze cards without knowing whether the effort would pay off.
From Tangem’s perspective, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to attack random wallets is economically unrealistic.
Both Researchers and Tangem Have Valid Arguments
The Real Risk Exists in a Very Specific Situation
The debate between Ledger’s researchers and Tangem highlights an important reality in cybersecurity.
The researchers are correct that:
The vulnerability is real.
The attack works against affected cards.
The issue cannot be patched.
Tangem is also correct that:
The attack is extremely expensive.
It requires physical access.
Ordinary users are unlikely targets.
The realistic danger exists mainly when a valuable wallet card is lost, stolen, confiscated, or obtained by someone who already suspects it contains significant funds.
Laser Attacks Are Becoming a Bigger Hardware Security Challenge
Tangem Is Not the First Wallet Targeted
The Tangem discovery is not an isolated case.
Ledger’s Donjon team has previously demonstrated similar laser fault injection techniques against other hardware wallet technologies.
Researchers recently demonstrated a related attack involving the TROPIC01 security chip used in newer Trezor devices. In that case, researchers were able to bypass certain firmware protections but did not compromise the wallet PIN security layer.
The difference is that Trezor and Tropic Square were able to respond with hardware improvements and software mitigations because their platforms allow additional security adjustments.
Tangem faces a different challenge because its cards cannot receive firmware updates.
Previous Hardware Wallet Attacks Were Much Cheaper
Secure Elements Raised the Security Barrier
Earlier hardware wallet attacks were significantly easier.
Researchers previously extracted recovery seeds from older wallet models that relied on standard microcontrollers instead of dedicated secure elements.
Those attacks required equipment costing around $100.
Tangem’s use of a hardened secure element dramatically increases the difficulty.
The new laser attack requires a quarter-million-dollar laboratory setup, showing that secure elements work as intended by raising the cost of exploitation.
However, this research also demonstrates that secure hardware does not eliminate every possible attack.
Security certifications such as EAL6+ evaluate chip protections, but they do not guarantee that every piece of wallet firmware logic is flawless.
Deep Analysis: Hardware Fault Injection and Security Testing Commands
Understanding Physical Security Research
Hardware attacks often rely on fault injection techniques that manipulate electronic components during sensitive operations.
Security researchers commonly analyze systems using hardware debugging and testing tools.
Example Linux commands used during hardware security research:
lsusb
Used to identify connected hardware interfaces.
dmesg | tail -50
Used to inspect kernel messages when connecting debugging devices.
lspci
Used to enumerate PCI hardware components.
strings firmware.bin | grep -i password
Used during firmware analysis to search for interesting strings.
sha256sum firmware.bin
Used to verify firmware integrity.
binwalk firmware.bin
Used to analyze embedded firmware structures.
hexdump -C firmware.bin | less
Used to inspect binary data.
Hardware security researchers combine these techniques with specialized laboratory equipment such as oscilloscopes, fault injection systems, microscopes, and laser equipment.
The goal is not simply breaking devices. It is understanding whether security assumptions remain valid under extreme conditions.
What Undercode Say:
The Tangem Laser Attack Reveals the Difference Between Security and Perfect Security
Hardware wallets represent one of the strongest methods available for protecting cryptocurrency assets, but no security system is immune to every possible attack.
Tangem’s design successfully blocks many realistic threats:
Remote malware attacks.
Online password theft.
Private key extraction attempts.
Software-based compromise.
The laser attack operates at a completely different level.
It does not attack the user’s phone.
It does not attack the blockchain.
It does not attack the wallet application.
It attacks the physical behavior of silicon itself.
This is important because modern cybersecurity is increasingly moving beyond traditional software vulnerabilities.
Attackers and researchers are now examining:
Electrical behavior.
Hardware timing.
Chip architecture.
Firmware logic.
Manufacturing decisions.
The Tangem case also highlights a major security tradeoff.
A device that cannot be updated provides protection against unauthorized software modification, but it also creates permanent exposure when a design mistake is discovered.
The question is not whether hardware wallets can be broken.
The better question is:
How expensive, complicated, and unrealistic is the attack?
In Tangem’s case, the answer is extremely expensive and technically difficult.
For ordinary cryptocurrency users, the threat remains minimal.
For wealthy cryptocurrency holders, exchanges, institutions, and individuals storing millions in digital assets, physical security becomes much more important.
A lost hardware wallet should always be treated as compromised.
Passwords are valuable protection, but they should never replace proper asset management practices.
The future of hardware wallet security will likely involve:
More secure chips.
Better firmware validation.
Hardware redundancy.
Stronger tamper detection.
More flexible update mechanisms.
Security researchers will continue discovering advanced attacks because that is how security improves.
Every successful attack teaches manufacturers where defenses need strengthening.
Verification Summary
✅ Ledger Donjon researchers demonstrated a laser fault injection attack against Tangem wallet cards.
✅ The attack requires physical access, expensive equipment, and specialized hardware skills.
❌ There is no evidence that this attack has caused real-world cryptocurrency theft from Tangem users.
Prediction
(+1) Future Hardware Wallet Security Will Become More Resistant to Physical Attacks
Hardware wallet manufacturers will likely improve secure element designs and introduce stronger protections against fault injection attacks.
More companies will combine secure chips with updateable security layers to avoid permanent vulnerabilities.
Institutional cryptocurrency holders will increasingly use multi-layer protection instead of relying on a single hardware device.
Older non-updatable hardware wallets may continue carrying undiscovered risks as security research advances.
What Users Should Do Now
Protecting Tangem Wallet Funds
For most Tangem users, no immediate action is required.
The attack cannot affect a card that remains securely controlled by its owner.
However, anyone who has lost a Tangem card or believes someone else has physical access to it should consider moving funds immediately.
Recommended actions:
Transfer assets using another trusted recovery method.
Avoid relying on a lost card password as the only protection.
Store backup cards securely.
Use additional security layers for high-value cryptocurrency holdings.
The lesson from this research is clear: hardware wallets are extremely powerful security tools, but physical possession remains one of the most important factors in protecting digital assets.
▶️ Related Video (76% Match):
🕵️📝Let’s dive deep and fact‑check.
🎓 Live Courses & Certifications:
Join Undercode Academy for Verified Certifications
🚀 Request a Custom Project:
Secure, high-velocity infrastructure and disruptive technological engineering. Contact our engineering team for high-tier development and proprietary systems:
[email protected]
💎 Smart Architecture | 🛡️ Secure by Design | ⭐ Trusted by Thousands
References:
Reported By: thehackernews.com
Extra Source Hub (Possible Sources for article):
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit
Wikipedia
OpenAi & Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
🔐JOIN OUR CYBER WORLD [ CVE News • HackMonitor • UndercodeNews ]
📢 Follow UndercodeNews & Stay Tuned:
𝕏 formerly Twitter 🐦 | @ Threads | 🔗 Linkedin | 🦋BlueSky | 🐘Mastodon | 📺Youtube
