Yeah that doesn't make much sense. It's misleading because it's technically "digitally generated" either way... A cryptographically secure pseudo random number generator should be using something truly unpredictable as a seed. Something in the environment, like random mouse movement or background noise or temperature or light. So, I guess how I can see how they might be attempting to differentiate a non secure PRNG vs a secure one by calling the former "digital". But it's all still happening in the box. In theory there's nothing about a hardware wallet that can do this better than a computer.
It sounds like they might just be referring to the general insecurity of internet connected devices, or perhaps the overall lack of integrity with software wallets - see the milksad vuln (they weren't using a CSPRNG).
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @joda OP 2 Apr
Oh wow that was RECENT. I started reading and thought it was from like ten years ago.
reply
Yeah it seems like this should have been 10 years ago. Insane the things people continue to get wrong.
reply
Well, there are hardware quantum random generators in mobile phones for a few years already.
reply