~70 wallet holders
On October 22, 2026, Belgian hardware wallet company Ngrave disclosed a sophisticated phishing attack that resulted in the theft of approximately $2.56 million from its customers. The attackers compromised a third-party push notification provider used by Ngrave's LIQUID companion mobile app. By leveraging this trusted channel, the attackers sent fraudulent security alerts to users, luring them to a convincing phishing website. There, victims were tricked into entering their secret recovery phrases, giving the attackers full control of their crypto assets. The incident highlights the significant risks posed by supply chain vulnerabilities, even when the core hardware device remains secure.
The attack, which took place on October 17, 2026, was a highly effective social engineering campaign that abused a trusted communication channel. The threat actors did not breach Ngrave's core systems or the ZERO hardware wallets themselves. Instead, they targeted a weaker link in the supply chain: the third-party service responsible for push notifications.
The attack flow was as follows:
This attack is a prime example of Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) combined with a Trusted Relationship (T1199) abuse. The attackers' success hinged on the credibility of the push notification. Because it came from the legitimate app, users were far more likely to trust its contents and follow its instructions. The core of the attack was not a technical exploit against the wallet's cryptography but a psychological manipulation to trick users into voluntarily surrendering their most critical secret.
The recovery phrase is the master key to a crypto wallet; anyone who possesses it has total control over the funds. The attackers' campaign was designed with a single goal: to capture this phrase.
The financial impact was significant, with approximately $2.56 million in cryptocurrency stolen from around 70 different wallet addresses. The stolen assets were spread across multiple blockchains:
While the Ngrave ZERO hardware wallet itself was not compromised, the incident causes significant reputational damage and erodes user trust. It serves as a stark reminder that the security of a crypto ecosystem is only as strong as its weakest link, which can often be a third-party service provider or the user themselves.
No specific phishing URLs, C2 domains, or wallet addresses were provided in the source articles.
For users, detection is extremely difficult once the trusted channel is compromised. The primary defense is user awareness and vigilance.
Mitigation for this type of attack falls into two categories: user-side and vendor-side.
The most critical mitigation is training users to recognize social engineering tactics and to understand the sanctity of their recovery phrase. Users must be taught to never enter it anywhere online.
While the primary defense is user education, browser-level security tools can offer a layer of protection. Advanced anti-phishing extensions and services analyze URLs, page content, and SSL certificates to detect counterfeit sites. In the case of the Ngrave attack, such a tool might have identified the phishing domain as newly registered or flagged it for using a slightly different URL than the legitimate Ngrave site. By analyzing the behavior of the page (e.g., a form asking for a 24-word phrase, which is highly unusual), the tool could block the site and warn the user. This provides an automated safety net for users who might momentarily fall for a sophisticated social engineering lure.
Investigation suggests unauthorized access to the notification provider may have started.
Attackers send malicious push notifications to Ngrave users and steal funds.
Ngrave publicly discloses the phishing attack and the extent of the losses.

Cybersecurity professional with over 10 years of specialized experience in security operations, threat intelligence, incident response, and security automation. Expertise spans SOAR/XSOAR orchestration, threat intelligence platforms, SIEM/UEBA analytics, and building cyber fusion centers. Background includes technical enablement, solution architecture for enterprise and government clients, and implementing security automation workflows across IR, TIP, and SOC use cases.
CyberNetSec.io uses automation to assist source monitoring, deduplication, observable extraction, and structured intelligence generation. Published analysis follows human-defined editorial standards and adds defensive context including MITRE ATT&CK, D3FEND, STIX, and Sigma where applicable. Read our editorial policy.
Help others stay informed about cybersecurity threats
Every tactic, technique, and sub-technique used in this threat has been identified and mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK framework for consistent, actionable threat language.
Observables and indicators of compromise (IOCs) have been extracted and cataloged. Risk has been assessed and correlated with known threat actors and historical campaigns.
Detection rules, incident response steps, and D3FEND-aligned mitigation strategies are included so your team can act on this intelligence immediately.
Structured threat data is packaged as a STIX 2.1 bundle and can be visualized as an interactive graph — relationships between actors, malware, techniques, and indicators.
Sigma detection rules are derived from the threat techniques in this article and can be converted for deployment across any major SIEM or EDR platform.