Nostr

Thoughts on Trezor Safe 5 and Ledger Flex:

I like the UX improvements on both devices.

Nice improvements to Trezor's security model with Safe 3 and Safe 5. The addition of a secure element mitigates the old physical seed extraction vulnerability. Also, the chip in the Safe 5 mitigates glitching attacks and has additional anti-tamper features.

Safe 5 screen is slick and touchscreen + haptic feedback work exactly as I'd expect.

Ledger flex e-ink screen is also nice and I really hope the longevity of it is better than what we saw on Nano S devices with many experiencing screen failure after a few years.

On the complex bitcoin transaction signing performance side, Safe 5 is the fastest Trezor yet and is only exceeded by BitBox02.

Ledger, on the other hand, is looking to have worse signing performance than the Nano S Plus. SAD!

Props to both Ledger and Trezor for shipping new hardware that is compatible with existing APIs and SDKs. As a result, these devices were automatically usable with Casa's software!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Weird Mike Jerkovic 1y ago

I really love the idea of e-ink displays.

Thanks for your work!

Bfgreen 1y ago

Thanks for the detailed notes. I'm intrigued by the UX of the new Ledger e-ink devices, but not yet ready to spend the $$$ to upgrade my Ledger Nano X. Soon though...

frphank 1y ago

https://trezor.io/learn/a/secure-element-in-trezor-safe-devices

"The Secure Element used in the Trezor Safe 3 and Safe 5 is the OPTIGA™ Trust M (V3)."

Isn't that the one that was just found vulnerable in Yubikeys.

Cincy 1y ago

from my understanding (not a tech guy), the original Nano S was the most secure Ledger device due to its inability to download the firmware for Ledger Recover. Would you agree with that?