Ledger once again finds itself in the spotlight, not for a crypto flaw, but for a exposure of client data related to an external provider. In early January, users were alerted to a security incident at Global-e, an e-commerce partner used by Ledger for managing international sales. Personal data was accessed without authorization. An episode that brings back bad memories and raises a central question: in a world obsessed with onchain security, is the offchain infrastructure still the weakest link?
What we know precisely about the incident
According to the official communication sent to customers, Global-e experienced unauthorized access to one of its cloud systems, containing order data from various brands, including Ledger. The information involved includes customer identification elements related to purchases made on Ledger.com, with Global-e acting as the reference merchant.
Ledger emphasizes several key points. There was no intrusion into its own systems. Neither the hardware, nor the software, nor the Ledger platforms were compromised. No payment information was exposed. Above all and of course, no critical self-custody data is affected: neither the 24 recovery words, nor the balances, nor any cryptographic secrets.
In short, the leak is commercial and logistical, not cryptographic. But in the crypto ecosystem, this type of distinction, although fundamental technically, often carries little weight with users.
Why this type of leak is particularly sensitive in crypto
In a traditional e-commerce sector, leaking names, emails, or addresses is already problematic. In crypto, it can become dangerous. Owning a Ledger is, by definition, a signal. It indicates an interest in digital assets, sometimes significant amounts, and a willingness to autonomously manage funds.
This type of information is a gold mine for attackers specializing in social engineering. Targeted phishing, fake customer support, alarming emails, fraudulent calls: past incidents have shown that the consequences of a data leak extend far beyond mere privacy violations.
Ledger implicitly acknowledges this by calling for increased vigilance. The company states that it will never ask for the 24 words, encourages the use of clear signing, and warns against phishing attempts. The message is clear: the main threat often begins after the leak, not when it is revealed.
The weight of the past: impossible to ignore 2020
This incident comes at a particularly sensitive time for Ledger. In 2020, the release of a database containing personal information of over 270,000 customers deeply affected the community. Emails, phone numbers, and in some cases, physical addresses circulated on forums, leading to waves of phishing attempts, as well as intimidation and harassment.
This case resulted in a collective action and permanently damaged the trust of some users. Even though the current situation is very different technically and legally, the mere fact that a new episode occurs is enough to revive this collective memory.
This is the challenge for Ledger. The company may be impeccable in terms of cryptography, but remains exposed through its network of providers. To the public, the distinction between an internal leak and a leak from a partner is often secondary.
A systemic issue, not isolated
Ledger is not a unique case. The incident highlights a broader reality: crypto companies, even when advocating for individual sovereignty and maximum security, remain dependent on Web2 providers for logistics, customer support, distribution, or marketing.
Global-e is not a minor player. It manages international sales for many brands. According to Ledger, several companies are affected by this data exposure. This places the event in a larger framework: that of the security of the supply chain, which has become a major blind spot in the digital industry.
As crypto professionalizes, adopts institutional standards, and targets the general public, this attack surface only widens.
Ledger responded promptly, communicated clearly, and put safeguards in place. But in an industry where trust is as precious as bitcoin itself, every incident, even indirectly, has a cost. And this cost is not just measured in exposed data, but also in long-term credibility.
