Hardware wallet makers Trezor and BitBox have warned users about phishing emails disguised as urgent security notices after suspected compromises involving third party email services.

Trezor said on Wednesday that its email provider had been breached and warned users not to interact with a fraudulent message titled “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability.” The company told recipients not to click any links in the email.

BitBox issued a similar warning the same day after users received a phishing email impersonating the company. Its preliminary review found that its newsletter provider was likely compromised, with several Bitcoin companies appearing to have been targeted through a provider they shared.

Trezor phishing email claims entropy vulnerability

The fraudulent Trezor email presented the supposed STM32 entropy vulnerability as a security problem requiring users to take action.

Trezor rejected the message and confirmed that it was a phishing attempt. The company said the affected third party email provider had been breached, while its warning focused on preventing recipients from following links contained in the message.

The phishing campaign comes after a real entropy related vulnerability affected another hardware wallet maker earlier this year. A Coldcard firmware flaw disclosed in July involved weak random number generation that could result in vulnerable wallet seeds.

The Coldcard issue stemmed from a build configuration error that caused affected devices to use a software pseudorandom number generator instead of the intended hardware random number generator. The vulnerability affected Coldcard Mk3 firmware dating back to March 2021.

Attackers later exploited the weakness to identify wallets created with vulnerable seeds. An attack on July 31 initially moved 594 BTC worth approximately $38 million from around 500 addresses, with later analysis connecting more addresses and Bitcoin to the same vulnerability.

As crypto.news previously reported, the Coldcard security incident prompted Kraken Chief Security Officer Nick Percoco to call for independent audits of hardware wallet seed generation. Coinkite released firmware fixes, but wallets created using vulnerable seeds still required users to generate new seed phrases and move their Bitcoin.

BitBox said in July that its devices were not affected by the random number generation vulnerability.

BitBox points to newsletter provider compromise

BitBox said its preliminary investigation indicated that its newsletter provider was likely compromised after phishing emails impersonating the hardware wallet company reached users.

The company found that several other Bitcoin businesses had been targeted and appeared to use the same newsletter provider. BitBox warned subscribers about the phishing attempt while continuing to investigate the incident.

The phishing campaign followed a separate BitBox security disclosure in August, when the company patched two firmware flaws affecting its hardware wallets.

One of the vulnerabilities could have allowed malicious firmware to be installed under certain conditions. The second involved Bitcoin address handling and could have affected how addresses were verified.

BitBox said there was no known exploitation of either vulnerability and no user funds were reported stolen. Updated firmware was released to address both issues.

Hardware wallet users have faced attacks that do not require compromising the devices themselves. Some campaigns instead rely on impersonating wallet manufacturers and persuading users to disclose recovery information.

In February, attackers sent physical letters impersonating Trezor and Ledger and directed recipients to scan QR codes for supposed authentication or transaction checks.

The hardware wallet phishing campaign used official looking letters and deadlines to create urgency. The QR codes directed users to malicious websites that requested 12, 20 or 24 word recovery phrases under the pretense of verifying wallet ownership.

Anyone who obtains a recovery phrase can recreate the associated wallet and control its funds. Trezor and Ledger said legitimate hardware wallet providers do not ask users to enter, scan, upload or share recovery phrases through websites or other external channels.

Trezor customer data breach affected more than 80,000 users

Trezor’s latest phishing warning follows separate disclosures involving customer information held by its shipping provider ShipMonk.

On Aug. 13, Trezor disclosed that unauthorized access to ShipMonk systems had exposed data belonging to 13,689 customers.

The initial disclosure covered 11,742 customers whose names, email addresses, phone numbers and shipping addresses were exposed. Another 1,947 customers had their names, cities and email addresses compromised.

Trezor said its own systems were not breached and its hardware wallets, private keys and recovery phrases remained secure. The company warned that the exposed customer information could be used for more convincing phishing and impersonation attempts.

The ShipMonk incident was mentioned in previous coverage of the BitBox firmware vulnerabilities, alongside another customer data exposure involving hardware wallet maker SafePal. Neither incident compromised the companies’ hardware wallets or recovery phrases.

Trezor expanded its ShipMonk disclosure on Sept. 4 after learning that another approximately 67,000 U.S. customers were affected.

The additional records belonged to customers who placed orders between November 2019 and August 2021 and included names, email addresses, phone numbers, shipping addresses and order numbers.

Combined with the customers identified in August, the expanded disclosure brought the number affected by the ShipMonk breach to more than 80,000.

Trezor said it had previously received assurances that the older customer information had been deleted from ShipMonk’s systems. The company learned on Sept. 2 that the records had remained stored by the shipping provider.

Hardware wallet phishing has taken several forms

Trezor has dealt with phishing attempts through other communication channels before the latest email provider incident.

In June 2025, attackers abused the company’s contact form by submitting requests using targeted users’ email addresses. Trezor’s system then generated automated responses that appeared to come from its legitimate support infrastructure.

The Trezor contact form attack allowed the phishing messages to appear more credible because recipients received communications associated with the company’s support process.

Trezor said at the time that its internal email infrastructure had not been breached. The company warned users that it would never request their wallet backup and said recovery information should remain private and offline.

The phishing attempts targeting Trezor and BitBox this week instead led both companies to point to third party email services. BitBox said several Bitcoin companies appeared to have been targeted through a shared newsletter provider, while Trezor confirmed that its email provider had been breached.

Unicoin has sued Uniswap Labs in New York federal court, seeking declarations that its UNICOIN brand does not infringe Uniswap’s trademarks and asking the court to cancel Uniswap’s federal UNI trademark registration.

Unicoin said in a Sept. 8 complaint shared with crypto.news and filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that the dispute followed months of demands from Uniswap, which accused the company of trademark infringement, dilution, cybersquatting and unfair competition. Uniswap had known about Unicoin for at least two years before making its first trademark claims in June, according to the filing.

The lawsuit asks the court to rule that Unicoin can continue using its name and unicorn logo without infringing the UNISWAP, UNI or UNICHAIN marks. Unicoin is separately challenging U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,307,721 for UNI, arguing that the term is generic or, at most, descriptive without acquired distinctiveness.

Unicoin lawsuit targets Uniswap’s UNI trademark

The dispute began with a June 3 letter from Uniswap’s lawyers demanding that Unicoin permanently stop using UNICOIN and other names containing UNI in connection with cryptocurrency, blockchain, decentralized finance or a decentralized ecosystem.

Uniswap demanded the transfer of unicoin.com and unicoin.org, an accounting of Unicoin’s revenue and profits, reimbursement of its legal fees and an agreement preventing future use or registration of the disputed marks, according to the complaint.

Unicoin rejected the demands on June 23, telling Uniswap that it had independently developed the UNICOIN name and had continuously used it since 2021. Its lawyers argued that the brands had different appearances and commercial meanings and that widespread use of the UNI prefix weakened Uniswap’s claim to exclusive rights over it.

Uniswap rejected that response on July 17 and maintained that UNICOIN was likely to cause confusion with UNISWAP, UNI and UNICHAIN. It warned that it would consider other legal remedies if the matter was not resolved to its satisfaction.

Another exchange followed before Uniswap sent a final letter on Aug. 14. The complaint said Uniswap again demanded the removal of references to the UNICOIN token and told the company it would not continue the back and forth, while warning that legal remedies remained available.

Unicoin has now asked the court to settle the dispute before Uniswap brings an infringement case.

Unicoin says UNI is too common for exclusive protection

A central part of Unicoin’s case challenges the strength of the UNI mark itself.

Uniswap owns a federal registration for UNI covering technology used to issue cryptocurrency tokens that holders can use to vote on and govern a blockchain protocol. The registration lists Sept. 16, 2020 as the first commercial use date and was registered in February 2024.

Unicoin argues that “uni” is a common prefix derived from the Latin word unus, meaning “one,” and appears in words ranging from unit and union to universe, university and unicorn. Its complaint says more than 3,600 registrations in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database contain UNI, with approximately 1,000 currently live.

The company extended that argument to crypto, identifying several projects that use UNI or names beginning with the same letters. It said multiple unrelated cryptocurrencies have traded under the UNI ticker, while projects including Unibot, Unifi Protocol DAO, UniLend Finance and Unibright use similar naming conventions. Some UNI-formative crypto projects cited in the complaint predate Uniswap’s September 2020 governance token.

Unicoin wants the court to cancel Uniswap’s UNI registration on the grounds that UNI is generic or merely descriptive without secondary meaning and fails to function as an identifier of a single source. Because the registration is less than five years old, the complaint argues that it has not become incontestable under federal trademark law.

Unicoin disputes risk of consumer confusion

Unicoin has based another part of its case on differences between the two companies’ products and branding.

Its complaint describes UNICOIN as an asset-backed cryptocurrency marketed under the tagline “The Smart Coin for Smart People,” while Uniswap operates a decentralized exchange tied to its UNI governance token and Unichain blockchain. Unicoin said it had withdrawn plans for a separate governance token under the UNICOIN name and renamed a planned proprietary blockchain so it no longer used a UNI prefix.

The filing makes a similar distinction between the names themselves, arguing that UNICOIN refers to a digital coin, UNISWAP conveys trading or exchange, and UNICHAIN refers to blockchain infrastructure.

Unicoin said years of marketing by both companies had produced no known cases in which consumers asked whether it was connected with Uniswap. It claimed to have sold to thousands of investors and coinholders in more than 100 countries while spending millions of dollars on advertising, including Times Square billboards, buses, taxis and major industry events.

The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison of the companies’ unicorn logos on page 14. Unicoin describes its design as angular and made from sharp lines, compared with the curved unicorn imagery used by Uniswap.

Trademark fight comes before Unicoin offering

Unicoin claims the timing of Uniswap’s demands is significant because they arrived shortly before its planned public offering.

The company said Uniswap founder Hayden Adams had publicly commented on Unicoin in May 2024, showing that Uniswap knew about the business more than two years before sending its first infringement letter. According to the complaint, Adams wrote that Unicoin should face scrutiny from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Unicoin characterized the comment as evidence of personal hostility, an allegation Uniswap has not yet answered in the case.

The SEC later brought its own case against Unicoin. As crypto.news previously reported, the regulator sued the company and several executives in May 2025, accusing them of raising more than $100 million through allegedly misleading and unregistered securities offerings. Unicoin CEO Alex Konanykhin denied the allegations and said the company would fight the case.

Uniswap has faced separate litigation and regulatory disputes. In March, a federal judge dismissed a class action that sought to hold Uniswap Labs responsible for alleged scam tokens and rug pulls traded through its protocol. Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice after earlier federal securities claims had been rejected.

A separate intellectual-property case brought by Bancor-linked entities ended in Uniswap’s favor in February after they accused the company of infringing patents covering technology used in automated decentralized trading. The patent infringement case concerned the constant product automated market maker technology used by the protocol.

Uniswap had previously faced SEC scrutiny over allegations that it facilitated unregistered securities trading and operated as an unregistered broker-dealer. The agency ended its Uniswap investigation without taking enforcement action in February 2025.

In its latest lawsuit, Unicoin is seeking five forms of substantive relief covering non-infringement, dilution, cancellation of the UNI registration, cybersquatting and unfair competition. It wants declarations allowing continued use of UNICOIN and its domains, cancellation of Uniswap’s UNI registration and an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs. Unicoin has demanded a jury trial on issues eligible to be tried by a jury.

NVIDIA announced on Sept. 9 that it is working with eight Australian infrastructure providers on an AI factory buildout targeting up to two gigawatts of capacity by 2027.

The planned expansion involves Firmus, Sharon AI, IREN, Megaport, ResetData, CDC, NEXTDC and AirTrunk. According to NVIDIA’s official announcement, the partners will develop land, power and powered-shell capacity capable of hosting multiple generations of NVIDIA DSX infrastructure.

NVIDIA will provide accelerated computing systems, networking equipment, software and technical support. The participating companies will operate the facilities. That structure means the two-gigawatt figure represents a collective capacity target, rather than a single NVIDIA-owned data center.

The proposed buildout would be larger than Australia’s existing data center computing capacity. Australia currently has about 1.6 gigawatts, according to Data Centres Australia and market researcher DC Byte, figures cited by Reuters.

Eight partners will divide infrastructure responsibilities

Sharon AI plans to deploy up to 68,000 NVIDIA GPUs connected through NVIDIA Quantum InfiniBand and Spectrum-X Ethernet networking. The company said the systems would serve Australian startups, enterprises, government agencies and research organizations requiring locally hosted computing capacity.

IREN will combine NVIDIA’s DSX reference architecture with its experience in power, land, data centers and GPU operations. Its contribution includes the planned 800-megawatt Bundey campus in South Australia. IREN has historically operated Bitcoin mining infrastructure but has increasingly expanded into AI cloud services and high-performance computing.

That shift reflects a wider overlap between cryptocurrency mining and AI infrastructure. Both businesses require access to large power supplies, cooling systems and computing facilities. In related coverage, crypto.news examined why AI chips are increasingly being compared with scarce digital assets as demand for computing capacity grows.

CDC said it operates more than 550 megawatts across Australia and New Zealand, with another 800 megawatts under construction. The company also claims its facilities use renewable electricity and zero-water cooling systems. Those environmental statements are company claims and have not been independently verified across every proposed site.

NVIDIA DSX connects facilities with AI software

NVIDIA describes DSX as a full-stack AI factory platform covering facility design, computing, networking, software and reference architecture. The system is compatible with CUDA and is designed to support later generations of NVIDIA hardware without requiring operators to redesign every infrastructure layer.

The company said expanded capacity would give Australian organizations greater access to NVIDIA Nemotron open models. Healthcare technology company Heidi is using Nemotron tools for clinical applications, while Atlassian is applying NVIDIA technology to semantic search and other features within its Rovo AI platform.

However, NVIDIA did not disclose the expected cost of the Australian buildout, individual investment commitments or how much of the targeted capacity already has financing, planning approval or grid connections. The two-gigawatt target should therefore be treated as a forward-looking plan rather than completed infrastructure.

Power access will determine whether the target is reached

The scale of the proposal brings power availability, grid connections and cooling requirements into focus. Data centers consume electricity continuously, and high-density GPU clusters can require more advanced cooling than conventional computing facilities.

NVIDIA said additional capacity could support new power-generation projects, but it did not identify specific generation assets or electricity contracts. Australian authorities and infrastructure operators will need to assess network connections, construction approvals and local environmental requirements for individual projects.

NEXTDC separately announced plans to raise A$1.1 billion through convertible notes to support its expanding AI infrastructure portfolio, Reuters reported. The financing is broader than the NVIDIA collaboration and should not be treated as funding solely for DSX facilities.

The next measurable developments will be site approvals, power agreements, construction milestones and GPU delivery schedules. NVIDIA and its partners have not published a shared timetable showing how much capacity should become operational during each stage before 2027.

NVIDIA also cautioned that its infrastructure projections remain subject to demand, partner execution, regulation and technology availability. Investors can monitor those risks through the company’s SEC filings, alongside future announcements from the eight Australian partners.