Scammers Stole Personal Data of Ledger Crypto Wallet Users

RBK-cryptoОпубликовано 2026-01-05Обновлено 2026-01-05

Введение

Summary: Cryptocurrency hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger has suffered another data breach, this time through its e-commerce payment partner, Global-e. According to crypto investigator ZachXBT, the incident compromised users' personal data, including names and contact information. An email shared by ZachXBT, reportedly sent to affected users, stated that Global-e detected suspicious activity and that an unauthorized party had accessed certain personal data. At the time of reporting, Ledger had not yet released an official statement with details of the incident. This is not Ledger's first breach; in 2020, the data of over 270,000 customers was compromised, which led to years of targeted phishing attempts against users. The summary also notes that the American exchange Coinbase faced a major data breach in 2025, causing an estimated hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

Another data breach of users of the popular crypto wallet manufacturer Ledger has occurred through the payment system Global-e. As reported by crypto detective ZachXBT, the incident resulted in the disclosure of customers' personal data, including names and contact information.

ZachXBT shared a fragment of an email received by some users:

"Suspicious activity was detected in a part of our network at Global-e. We took steps to isolate and secure our systems. We engaged independent digital forensics experts to investigate the incident and determined that there was unauthorized access to some personal data, including name and contact information."

No official statement from Ledger with details of the incident has been published at the time of writing.

As stated on the crypto wallet manufacturer's website, Global-e offers e-commerce solutions. Since October 9, 2023, Ledger has been using the Global-e platform to sell Ledger products through the official Ledger website.

In 2020, the company already reported a data compromise of over 270 thousand wallet buyers, including delivery addresses, their phone numbers, and email addresses. It was reported that after the incident, the personal information of 4,865 users from Russia, among others, became publicly available.

After the incident, for several years, Ledger users received phishing mailings electronically and even in paper form. The goal of these letters was to obtain additional information that could lead to the theft of cryptocurrency.

A major user data leak in 2025 also affected the American crypto exchange Coinbase, where, according to expert estimates, the damage amounted to several hundred million dollars.

What will happen to the regulation of the cryptocurrency market in Russia in 2026

Bitcoin turned 17 years old

Bitcoin as 'digital gold': what an investor should know

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat company experienced a recent data breach affecting users of its crypto wallet?

ALedger, the manufacturer of a popular crypto wallet, experienced a data breach through its payment system, Global-e.

QWhich payment system was the source of the Ledger user data leak?

AThe data leak occurred through the Global-e payment system, which Ledger uses for e-commerce and product sales on its official website.

QWhat type of user information was compromised in the Ledger data breach according to the email shared by ZachXBT?

AThe compromised information included users' names and contact information.

QHad Ledger experienced a similar data security incident prior to this one?

AYes, in 2020, Ledger reported a data breach that compromised the information of over 270,000 customers, including delivery addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.

QWhat was a long-term consequence for users after Ledger's 2020 data breach?

AFor several years after the 2020 incident, Ledger users received phishing messages via email and even physical mail, aimed at stealing additional information to facilitate cryptocurrency theft.

Похожее

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

"World Models" has become a widely used yet confusing term in AI. To address this, a team led by Fei-Fei Li and World Labs proposed a functional taxonomy based on the Partially Observable Markov Decision Process framework. This taxonomy categorizes systems called "world models" into three distinct projections: Renderers, Simulators, and Planners. Renderers, like OpenAI's Sora and other video generation models, focus on producing photorealistic visual outputs for human perception. They prioritize visual fidelity over physical accuracy. Simulators, such as NVIDIA Omniverse, aim to compute precise future environmental states for computational tasks like engineering analysis or digital twins. Planners, like Vision-Language-Action models, take in observations and goals to output executable actions for robots or agents. The article clarifies that most current "world models," including Sora, are primarily Renderers. They generate convincing visuals but lack the core ability to simulate state transitions based on actions, a key requirement for a true world model in classic reinforcement learning definitions. This conceptual confusion has practical implications, leading to potential misalignment in technology selection, investment, and public understanding of AI capabilities. Clear categorization is crucial. It helps enterprises avoid costly mistakes (e.g., using a renderer for robot training), allows investors to accurately assess markets, and enables researchers to build comparable benchmarks. While future systems may integrate these functions, recognizing current boundaries is essential for honest assessment and progress.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Fei-Fei Li's Team Clarifies the Concept of 'World Models', Sora Merely a Renderer

marsbit1 ч. назад

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

**Summary: How Wealthy Chinese Circumvent $50,000 Annual Foreign Exchange Limits** Despite China's strict capital controls, including an annual $50,000 per person foreign exchange quota, an estimated $150 billion in funds still leaves the country annually via various gray and underground channels. This report outlines the evolution of China's "capital wall" and the methods used to bypass it. **The Evolving Capital Controls:** * **Foundation (1994):** The system of "current account convertibility with strict capital account controls" was established. * **Quota Set (2007):** The $50,000 individual annual forex purchase limit was formalized. * **Crackdown Begins (2015-2017):** Following market volatility, enforcement tightened. Banks were required to scrutinize transactions, and channels like using UnionPay cards for Hong Kong insurance premiums or buying overseas property were blocked. * **Digital & Legal Upgrades (2024-2026):** Enhanced algorithms now flag suspicious patterns (e.g., "smurfing"). The Common Reporting Standard (CRS) provides Chinese tax authorities with data on citizens' offshore accounts. Unlicensed cross-border brokers have been targeted. **Five Primary Methods for Moving Capital:** 1. **Underground Banking / "Hawala" (Duiqiao):** The largest-scale method. No money crosses borders. Clients pay RMB to a domestic account; an overseas associate deposits equivalent foreign currency into the client's offshore account. Risks include high fees, account freezes, and legal penalties. 2. **"Smurfing" or "Ant Moving":** Using multiple individuals' $50,000 quotas to pool funds for one offshore recipient. Increasingly detected by anti-money laundering algorithms. 3. **Trade Invoice Manipulation:** Businesses over-invoice imports or under-invoice exports via offshore shell companies, creating a pretext to transfer excess funds abroad under the guise of trade. 4. **Channel Migration:** After a crackdown on internet brokers, funds flow toward more compliant but costly channels like major banks' cross-border wealth management services or Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) quotas. 5. **Structural Arrangements:** High-net-worth individuals use complex, high-cost legal structures involving offshore trusts, insurance, and investment migration programs to transfer asset ownership. **Regulatory Response: Focusing on People, Not Just Money** The current strategy extends oversight from enterprises to **individual residents**. Tools like CRS allow retroactive visibility into offshore assets. Cryptocurrencies, once seen as a potential loophole, are now actively monitored and prosecuted as an illegal channel. The underlying driver remains: with significant wealth concentrated among millions of affluent households seeking diversification amid domestic economic shifts, the incentive to move assets offshore persists despite regulatory barriers.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Bloomberg Uncovered: How Do China's Wealthy Circumvent the Annual $50,000 Limit to Transfer Assets?

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片