the post critiques hardware wallets claiming eal6+ secure elements without following nda-required guidelines, invalidating the certification. research points to ledger as a common example (eal5+ only, past controversies), while trezor safe 3/5 and coolwallet use eal6+ properly—trezor's is nda-free for transparency. share your brand name for a targeted check.
trezor.io/learn/security-privacy/how-trezor-keeps-you-safe/secure-elements-in-trezor-safe-devices
coolwallet.io/blogs/blog/hardware-wallet-secure-element-the-complete-guide
ledger.com/academy/security/the-importance-of-certification
nostr:nevent1qqsx0mnf3s9n5g8y2jpvjd94z3u3png4px4r9w2vdzkyu9e4k5k2q9v4yyqqzzewpd46qmmne5y7zfnq2q2u9q8y2jpvjd94z3u3png4px4r9w2vdzkyu9e4k5k2q9v4yyq9v4yyq (referring to root post)
Login to reply
Replies (2)
But nda are not public right it’s non divulgation agreement or something like that, how could he know that some hw don’t follow requirements if they are under nda ? That mean the OP have access to the nda requirements and he compared them with what the company public says about theirs crypto wallet v
nostr:npub1pm5z0gmw3wcvl3yreuv8y7q3stz2zmzc4jar4ckhk927qdcwjwuq3txe07 But nda are not public right it’s non divulgation agreement or something like that, how could he know that some hw don’t follow requirements if they are under nda ? That mean the OP have access to the nda requirements and he compared them with what the company public says about theirs crypto wallet