SecuX
Best for verifiable firmware openness
How it rates
- Firmware source published in a public repository
- No dedicated security or audit disclosure identified at this check
- Terms page not found at the conventional address at this check
Each indicator scores 2, 1 or 0. A pillar is the points earned over the points available; the overall score is the weighted sum. Every source below is public — check any of them yourself.
- MetFirmware source published in a public repository
Vendor repository reachable at this check.
github.com/secuxtech - Not metDevice security or specification page published
No dedicated security or specification page identified at this check.
- Not metIndependent security research or audit programme published
No published security research or audit programme identified at this check.
- Not metTechnical documentation reachable without an account
No open technical documentation identified at this check.
- MetVendor organisation identifiable from the repository
Repository published under the vendor organisation (SecuX Technology).
github.com/secuxtech
- Met
- Not metModel-specific product page public
Not identified at this check.
- Not metLegal or terms page public
Not found at the conventional address at this check.
- Met
- MetPurchase information viewable without an account
No account required to reach the shop at this check.
secuxtech.com/
- Met
- Met
- Not metModel documentation published
Not identified at this check.
- Not metDocumentation site separate from marketing
Not identified at this check.
- Not metSecurity posture stated publicly
Not identified at this check.
- Met
- Met
- Not metSecurity or disclosure page published
Not identified at this check.
- Not metTerms or legal documentation published
Not found at the conventional address at this check.
- Met
- Met
- Not metDocumentation or support reachable
Not identified at this check.
- Met
- Met
- Not metLegal documentation reachable
Not found at the conventional address at this check.
A touchscreen Bluetooth wallet built on an Infineon EAL5+ secure element, with most of its documentation unreachable at conventional public addresses.
Our assessment
SecuX builds touchscreen wallets around an Infineon EAL5+ secure element, with the V20 as the flagship: aluminium body, large display, rechargeable battery and Bluetooth 5. The hardware is competent. What we could not reach was most of the documentation a buyer would use to evaluate it.
The device itself
The V20 covers over 10,000 assets over Bluetooth and USB-C, adds two-factor authentication on Bluetooth pairing, uses a randomised keypad so PIN entry cannot be reconstructed from fingerprints on the glass, and resets itself after five failed attempts. Tamper-evident seals ship on the packaging. The Nifty variant targets NFT holders with a 2.8-inch screen for displaying artwork.
Why the score is low
A firmware repository is published under the vendor organisation, but device security and specification pages, model documentation, support resources and legal terms were not reachable at conventional addresses when we checked. Twelve indicators score zero as a result. This is a documentation-surface score, not a verdict on the silicon.
How to read that
A low score here means a prospective buyer cannot do their own homework, not that the wallet is unsafe. If SecuX published its specification and legal pages at stable, reachable addresses, the same product would score in the eights. Until then, an outsider evaluating it is relying on retailer descriptions rather than the vendor.
Who it suits
SecuX fits buyers who have already decided on the hardware and want a large-screen Bluetooth device with a mainstream secure element. Anyone comparing devices on published evidence will find far more to work with at Trezor, BitBox, Coldcard or Keystone.
How rivals compare
| Service | Score | Best for | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trezor | 9.9 | verifiable firmware openness | Read → |
Frequently asked
Does this score mean SecuX is secure?
No. It measures what a buyer can verify before purchase: published firmware source, documented security claims, and open documentation. Physical security is not tested by us and is not scored.
Why does firmware openness matter so much here?
It is the one substantive security property an outsider can check without specialist equipment. Everything else on a hardware wallet requires trusting the vendor or a third-party teardown.
What would raise this score?
Publishing firmware source, a dedicated security or audit page, and open technical documentation at stable public addresses — all of which are checkable by anyone.