A new security incident at Strategy’s commerce partner has reignited the debate over Ledger data breach risks and long‑term exposure for crypto customers worldwide.
New Global data breach exposes Ledger customer information
On January 5, 2026, blockchain researcher ZachXBT revealed that personal information belonging to Ledger customers had been accessed in a hack affecting payment processor Global‑e. According to the findings, attackers obtained customer names and contact details through vulnerabilities in Global‑e’s infrastructure.
However, the company emphasized that no wallet balances, private keys, or recovery phrases were touched. Global‑e said it detected suspicious activity in part of its cloud environment and moved quickly to lock down affected systems, bringing in external forensic investigators to assess the intrusion.
Moreover, there has been no indication so far that payment card numbers or account passwords were exposed. Ledger reiterated in a customer email that the incident occurred at the level of a third‑party provider, stressing that the core security of its hardware wallets and offline asset storage remains intact.
Heightened phishing and social engineering risks
While customer funds remain safe on hardware wallets, security researchers and community members warned that the new exposure greatly increases the odds of phishing and social engineering attempts. Attackers who possess verified names and contact details can craft highly targeted, convincing messages that appear to come from legitimate support channels.
That said, investigators do not see a direct technical link between this incident and earlier hacks in the ecosystem. Nevertheless, the clustering of breaches across crypto service providers in recent years has significantly deepened user anxiety about customer privacy and safety, as data once leaked can circulate indefinitely.
This latest ledger data breach reference comes in a context where identity‑based attacks against crypto holders are steadily rising. Exposed databases are frequently resold, aggregated, and reused across scam campaigns that may continue for many years after the initial compromise.
Legacy of the 2020 Ledger data breach
Ledger’s name carries particular weight whenever a data incident surfaces, largely because of the severe fallout from its notorious 2020 e‑commerce and marketing database leak. That earlier breach exposed roughly 1.1 million email addresses, along with full personal details such as home addresses and phone numbers for about 292,000 customers.
Moreover, the stolen data was later dumped publicly, creating a lasting threat environment for affected users. Victims endured persistent phishing waves, extortion emails, and even reports of physical threats, as criminals tried to exploit knowledge of who held significant crypto assets.
Some community members have since tracked particular scam operations back to those historical leaks. This demonstrates how one event can echo for years, reshaping perceptions of hardware wallet security risk despite the underlying devices remaining uncompromised.
Further security challenges for Ledger
The company has also faced other high‑profile incidents. In December 2023, attackers compromised Ledger’s Connect Kit JavaScript library through a supply‑chain exploit. During a brief window, this allowed them to trick users interacting with affected decentralized applications and drain nearly $500,000 in assets.
However, investigators again stressed that the hardware devices themselves were not directly breached. Instead, the attack underscored how vulnerabilities in software dependencies and third‑party tools can have severe consequences for end users, even when the core wallet technology is robust.
Security experts argue that repeated leaks of customer data create long‑term risks extending well beyond immediate financial theft. Personal details harvested from one compromise often appear later in unrelated scam waves, combining with public blockchain data to map out and pressure specific crypto holders.
How exposed data fuels long‑running scam campaigns
Once names, emails, and addresses escape into criminal markets, they become raw material for tailored fraud. Exposed information is regularly reused in professional‑looking phishing campaigns, including fake support emails, text messages, and even physical letters sent to home addresses.
In April 2025, for example, Ledger users reported receiving carefully designed postal mail instructing them to scan QR codes and enter their 24‑word recovery phrases. The company quickly warned that the letters were fake, but the sophistication of the scam highlighted how credible such attempts can appear.
Some in the community linked those mailed attacks to data obtained from earlier breaches, illustrating the long memory of the underground data economy. Moreover, these episodes reinforced concerns that any new ledger customer data leak today could fuel similar operations for years to come.
Industry‑wide pattern of third‑party and supply‑chain risk
The latest Ledger‑Global‑e incident also fits a broader industry pattern. In December 2025, a crypto tax software provider alerted users that their email addresses and basic profile data might have been compromised in a hack on an external analytics firm used in its operations.
However, the core infrastructure of these providers usually remains untouched. Attackers instead focus on vendors that aggregate user data, exploiting third‑party vendor risk as a path of least resistance. When successful, these breaches bypass hardened wallet systems and strike at user identities instead.
Investigators and regulators now consistently cite supply chain security vulnerabilities as one of the weakest links in the crypto security model. Moreover, specialist security companies have observed that loss events tend to spike during periods of high market activity, when user engagement surges and criminals see greater opportunity.
Outlook for users and crypto security practices
In practice, customers affected by the Global‑e incident must now treat any unexpected message, call, or letter referencing their Ledger use as a potential fraud attempt. That said, funds stored on properly secured hardware wallets should remain safe as long as recovery phrases and private keys are never shared.
The recurring breaches surrounding major brands show that securing crypto is not only about protecting private keys, but also about guarding personal data scattered across payment processors, marketing platforms, and tax tools. Going forward, the industry will likely face increasing pressure to harden third‑party integrations and reduce the amount of sensitive information exposed to vendors.
Overall, the latest incident underlines that while Ledger’s hardware devices have not been compromised, repeated exposures of customer information keep amplifying long‑term risks, demanding stronger data‑minimization practices and better scrutiny of every external partner in the crypto ecosystem.