An EAL5+ or EAL6+ label can be a useful security signal, but it should start a due-diligence question rather than end one.

First identify the target of the evaluation. A wallet may use a secure element with a Common Criteria rating. That tells you something about the assessed chip and its resistance under a defined scope. It does not automatically certify the entire device, firmware, bootloader, companion app, transaction parser, recovery process, manufacturing controls and every future update.

Use four questions for every badge: who issued it, what exact component was evaluated, which model and version were covered, and when the evaluation happened? Look for a certificate identifier, security target, evaluation report or audit scope. If a vendor cites an independent audit, check whether the report is available, whether findings were fixed and whether remediation was verified.

Then review the layers outside the badge. Examine firmware transparency, signed-update controls, vulnerability disclosure, bug-bounty coverage, trusted-screen clarity, recovery architecture and official purchase channels. A strong physical security component cannot stop a user from approving a malicious request or exposing recovery material.

TokenToolHub’s guide shows how to separate useful assurance evidence from vague security marketing:

https://tokentoolhub.com/wallet-security-certifications/

#WalletSecurity #HardwareWallets #CryptoSecurity #SelfCustody #CyberSecurity