Key Highlights
- Herbert is calling for locally manufactured hardware wallets, physical tamper detection, and open-source designs.
- The October 2026 Ledger supply chain breach involved tampered hardware and was linked to estimated losses of $86 million to $100 million.
- Foundation Devices presents its US-built Passport and Passport Prime wallets as examples of the security model Herbert supports.
Herbert Pushes Local Manufacturing for Hardware Wallet Security
Herbertâs vision for hardware wallet security extends beyond where devices are manufactured. He is also advocating for physical tamper detection and open-source designs, arguing that both are important for verifying that a device is authentic and has not been compromised before reaching the buyer.
Journalist Laura Shin highlighted Herbertâs emphasis on local manufacturing in a November 13, 2026 statement. She attributed the effort to reduce supply chain vulnerabilities directly to Herbert, whose position has gained attention amid growing concerns about the security of hardware wallets distributed through complex manufacturing and reseller networks.
The Ledger Supply Chain Breach Intensified the Debate
Herbertâs comments came after an October 2026 supply chain breach involving Ledger. Tampered hardware sold through resellers was linked to the theft of funds estimated at between $86 million and $100 million. The incident sharpened questions about how hardware wallets are manufactured, distributed, inspected, and authenticated before they reach customers.
The breach also underscored the limits of evaluating a wallet solely by its advertised technical features. If a device is altered before purchase, users may face risks that are difficult to identify through software specifications alone. That has placed greater focus on manufacturing controls, product provenance, reseller relationships, and hardware-based tamper detection.
How Foundation Devices Applies the Model
Foundation Devices has positioned its Passport hardware wallet line as an example of the approach Herbert advocates. The product range includes the newer Passport Prime model. Foundation builds its Passport devices entirely in the United States, with assembly conducted in an ITAR-certified facility. The company says that arrangement supports stronger validation of its supply chain.
The devices also use active tamper circuitry, which is designed to respond when someone attempts to physically interfere with the hardware. Foundation combines that feature with open-source software designs, giving users and other reviewers the ability to examine the software rather than relying exclusively on proprietary claims.
Foundationâs alignment with Herbertâs recommendations is also commercially relevant. Herbert is effectively describing his own product strategy as the industry standard he wants competitors to adopt. That does not invalidate the security argument, but buyers should recognize that the person promoting the model also sells a product built around it.
Hardware Wallet Market Could Divide Into Two Segments
Herbert has suggested that the hardware wallet market may eventually split into two distinct segments. The first would consist of high-security domestic products designed to build user trust through controlled manufacturing and features intended to respond to suspected interference.
Among the capabilities Herbert has cited is device bricking. In this context, a wallet can render itself unusable if it detects tampering, potentially preventing a compromised device from being used to access funds.
The second segment would involve do-it-yourself hardware wallet options, which are often used in multisignature arrangements. Multisig, short for multisignature, requires more than one key to approve a transaction. If one device is compromised, an attacker cannot move funds using that device alone.
What the Shift Means for Buyers and Manufacturers
For consumers, the central lesson is that device provenance may deserve as much attention as a walletâs features. Buying directly from the manufacturer instead of through a reseller is the clearest step consistent with Herbertâs argument. Buyers can also check whether a device includes physical tamper detection and whether its software designs are open source.
Manufacturers face a more difficult trade-off between security, cost, and scale. Domestic assembly and factory-direct shipping can give companies greater control over production and distribution, but those approaches conflict with the overseas manufacturing and third-party reseller networks that many hardware wallet companies use to expand output and reach more customers.
Why This Matters
The Ledger breach has made the hardware wallet supply chain a central part of the security conversation. The debate is no longer limited to encryption, transaction signing, or software design; it also concerns whether customers can trust the path a physical device takes from the factory to their hands.
Herbertâs proposed market split highlights two different responses. High-security domestic products would prioritize controlled production and tamper-resistant features, while DIY devices used in multisig setups would distribute trust across multiple keys and devices. The direction of the market will depend on how buyers and manufacturers balance assurance, affordability, convenience, and scale.
Frequently Asked Questions
What security measures is Herbert advocating?
Herbert is advocating local manufacturing, physical tamper detection, open-source designs, and features such as device bricking that can make a wallet unusable if tampering is detected.
What happened in the Ledger supply chain breach?
In October 2026, tampered Ledger hardware sold through resellers was linked to the theft of funds estimated at between $86 million and $100 million.
Why is Foundation Devices relevant to the discussion?
Foundation Devices builds its Passport hardware wallets, including Passport Prime, entirely in the United States. The devices are assembled in an ITAR-certified facility and include active tamper circuitry and open-source software designs.
