A SKEPTICAL ANALYSIS OF RASPBERRY PI-BASED COLD STORAGE VS. APPLE’S M5 ARCHITECTURE

SUBJECT: Comparative Hardware Security Analysis for Cryptocurrency Cold Storage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides a critical, evidence-based analysis of two competing platforms for cryptocurrency cold storage as of November 1, 2025. These platforms are the community-driven trend of using Raspberry Pi (Rpi) hardware and the theoretical use of Apple’s state-of-the-art M5-based computers.

The investigation concludes that the query presents a false dichotomy. Neither platform is a secure or appropriate solution for high-value cold storage. Each is compromised by “massive issues” that are largely ignored by their respective proponents.

• Rpi Model: This model is philosophically aligned with open-source ideals.¹ However, it is built on hardware with no root of trust or secure key storage.³ This makes its physical security non-existent.⁶
• Apple M5 Model: This model features a robust Secure Enclave.⁷ But it is compromised by an unpatchable CPU flaw (“GoFetch”) ⁹, a massive new AI attack surface ¹¹, and a fundamental incompatibility with the ‘air-gap’ principle.¹³

1. The Rpi Model: The trend of using Rpi hardware is not a technically superior security solution but a philosophical one. This is exemplified by the SeedSigner project.¹⁶ It is a direct market reaction to perceived betrayals by commercial, closed-source wallet vendors.¹ This model prioritizes auditable, open-source software and a verifiable physical air-gap above all else. However, it is built on general-purpose hardware.¹⁸ This hardware possesses no hardware root of trust, no secure key storage, and no isolated memory.³ Its security against physical “burglary” attacks is non-existent.⁶
2. The Apple M5 Model: The Apple M5 chip represents a “fortified” hardware architecture. It is centered on the Secure Enclave, a truly isolated co-processor that is secure even against a main kernel compromise.⁷ However, this model is compromised by three factors:
   • The “GoFetch” Vulnerability: A critical, “unpatchable” microarchitectural side-channel flaw in the M-series main CPUs ⁹ that allows for the extraction of cryptographic keys from any software running on them. The M5’s press materials ¹⁹ are conspicuously silent on a hardware fix, implying the main CPU remains untrusted for cryptographic operations.
   • The “AI” Attack Surface: The M5’s primary innovation—new Neural Accelerators in every GPU core ¹⁹—introduces a massive, complex, and untested attack surface ¹¹ for the “AI-level adversaries” specified in the query.
   • The “Air-Gap” Impossibility: Apple’s ecosystem is fundamentally incompatible with cold-storage principles. The hardware, software (macOS), and services (iCloud, Apple ID) are deeply integrated for online connectivity, making a true, secure air-gap a practical impossibility.¹³

Conclusion: The Rpi model is hardware-insecure and relies on user competence. The Apple model is ecosystem-compromised and architecturally flawed for this use case. This analysis suggests the ideal solution—combining a verifiable, open-source, air-gapped philosophy with robust, isolated hardware security—is not met by either platform. This report deconstructs both narratives to reveal the verifiable technical risks of each.

---

PHASE 1: DECONSTRUCTING THE “RASPBERRY PI COLD STORAGE” NARRATIVE

This phase analyzes the origin story of the Rpi cold-storage trend. The “news” here is not a single story but a grassroots community narrative.

Understanding this narrative is critical. Its philosophical underpinnings are the primary drivers of its adoption. These include prioritizing open-source, auditable software and eliminating corporate trust. This philosophy stands in sharp contrast to a purely technical assessment.

The analysis reveals that the trend is a solution to a philosophical problem (a lack of trust in vendors), not a technical one (a lack of hardware security).

1.1 Source Credibility and Narrative Origin

The trend of using Rpi devices for cryptocurrency cold storage does not originate from traditional news agencies or cybersecurity firms.

Instead, it is a user-generated narrative. It was born from enthusiast and developer-centric communities, such as Reddit forums ¹⁶ and DIY project blogs.²²

The primary sources for these solutions are open-source repositories, most notably on GitHub.¹⁶

The “authors” are typically hobbyists, pseudonymous developers, and crypto-proponents. They are not necessarily credentialed hardware security professionals.²³

The information is presented as “guides,” “discussions,” and “projects.” This indicates a community-driven, rather than industry-verified, phenomenon.

1.2 Language and Framing: “Self-Custody” vs. “Corporate Custody”

The language used in these community sources is fundamental to understanding the movement.

It is steeped in the “cypherpunk” ethos. It prioritizes terms like “self-custody” ²⁵, “privacy” ²², “independence” ²², and, most importantly, “open-source”.¹

The entire narrative is framed as a sharp dichotomy:

• The “Trusted” Model (FOSS): This model is presented as virtuous. It is Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS), fully auditable, and “trustless” (meaning it does not require trusting a third party). The user is in complete control.²⁷
• The “Untrusted” Model (Corporate): This model is presented as compromised. It is closed-source, controlled by a for-profit corporation, and prioritizes “convenience” at the direct expense of security.²

This framing is not objective; it is ideological. It pre-supposes that “closed-source” is synonymous with “insecure” and “open-source” is synonymous with “secure.”

1.3 The Catalyst: Breach of Trust in Commercial Wallets

This grassroots trend did not emerge in a vacuum. It is a direct, reactionary response to perceived betrayals by major commercial hardware wallet manufacturers, specifically Ledger.

• Ledger Recover Controversy: The community’s profound skepticism stems from events like the “Ledger Recover” feature controversy.¹ This (optional) service could export a user’s encrypted seed phrase shards to third-party custodians. This was seen as a fundamental breach of the cold-storage promise: that the private key never leaves the device. The community viewed this as proof that a firmware update could exfiltrate keys, whether Ledger claimed it would or not.²
• Direct User Migration: Community forums show users explicitly stating they “just moved from ledger to SeedSigner”.² Their reasoning is that Ledger, as a “big company,” is “not so interested on privacy or security itself”.² The closed-source nature of Ledger’s firmware and its reliance on a “black box” Secure Element ¹ creates a “trust” requirement. This is a requirement that the community is no longer willing to provide.
• Trezor’s Vulnerabilities: Even Trezor, the primary open-source commercial alternative, is not immune. Security firms have publicly demonstrated physical-access exploits against their devices, which typically use a single-chip architecture.¹ This has led to a market perception, whether accurate or not, that all commercial wallets are compromised in some way.

1.4 Evidence Presented: Conflating Software Audits with Hardware Security

The primary evidence of security cited by the Rpi community is the software’s open-source, auditable, and reproducible nature.¹⁷ Projects like SeedSigner emphasize their FOSS code.³⁰

This is the core logical leap and “blind spot” of the narrative.

The community strategically conflates the auditable software (which they can inspect) with the hardware it runs on (which they cannot).

This is a classic “Narrative Fallacy.” The community has constructed a compelling story of “FOSS self-sovereignty.” This story conveniently overshadows an inconvenient fact: the Rpi’s underlying hardware is itself a “black box” of closed-source silicon and proprietary firmware “blobs”.²⁸

The trend is, therefore, a “security flight” driven by philosophy.

Adherents are not choosing the Rpi because it has superior hardware security. They are fleeing commercial wallets. They are choosing the Rpi because it is a general-purpose, non-dedicated tool that allows them to run fully auditable, open-source software.²⁸

The core value is the elimination of trust in a corporate entity.

---

PHASE 2: INVESTIGATING SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING CLAIMS

This phase moves from narrative to fact. It conducts a head-to-head architectural comparison of the Rpi 5 and Apple M5 platforms. This analysis reveals a complete inversion of security architectures. The hardware, not the software, is the most critical layer of analysis for a “vault.”

2.1 Comparative Hardware Security Architecture

The following table provides a summary of the foundational security architectures of both platforms, as of November 1, 2025.

Table 2.1: Comparative Hardware Security Architecture

Security Feature	Raspberry Pi 5 (w/ SeedSigner Model)	Apple M5 (w/ Secure Enclave)
Hardware Root of Trust (RoT)	None. The Rpi “has no immutable boot code” or fused keys for secure boot verification.4	Yes. Immutable Boot ROM in the main SoC and a separate immutable Boot ROM in the Secure Enclave.7
Trusted Execution Environment (TEE)	None. The ARM TrustZone CPU capability exists but is “IS NOT SECURE” as the required hardware mechanisms are “not available”.3	Yes. The Secure Enclave Processor (SEP) is a fully isolated co-processor with its own OS (sepOS).7
Secure Key Storage	None. The model is intentionally “stateless”.[32] The Rpi has OTP memory, but it is accessible by kernel-level code.5	Yes. Keys are protected by the SEP using a fused, per-device Unique ID (UID) that is never exposed to the main CPU.8
Memory Isolation	None. The Rpi’s memory is a “‘big, flat space’” 4, with no hardware enforcement between secure/non-secure worlds.	Yes. The SEP has its own protected, encrypted memory. The main OS now uses hardware-based Memory Integrity Enforcement (MIE).[8, 33]
Software Verification	User-Based. The user is 100% responsible for verifying the FOSS software.[28, 34]	Hardware-Based. The hardware RoT verifies every stage of the boot chain is cryptographically signed by Apple.8
Primary Physical Attack Vector	Trivial. “SD card is easily removed and the keys… copied”.[6, 35, 36]	Extreme. Requires chip decapping, focused ion beam (FIB), or advanced fault injection/side-channel analysis.[37, 38]
Primary Software Attack Vector	User Error / Supply Chain. A malicious software image 28 or vulnerabilities in the QR parsing library.39	Microarchitectural. Side-channels on the main CPU (e.g., GoFetch) 10 or OS-level zero-days.[40, 41]

Table Legend: RoT (Root of Trust): An immutable hardware source of security (e.g., a Boot ROM) that verifies the entire boot chain. TEE (Trusted Execution Environment): A secure, isolated area inside a main processor (like ARM TrustZone) to protect sensitive operations. DMP (Data Memory-dependent Prefetcher): A hardware feature that attempts to speed up the CPU by pre-loading data, which can be exploited in side-channel attacks like GoFetch.

2.2 Deep Dive: The Rpi Security Model (or Lack Thereof)

The Rpi is a “small, inexpensive, portable computer”.¹⁸ Its purpose is education and, increasingly, industrial control.⁴² It was never designed to be a high-security vault.

• The “Insecure” TrustZone: The most damning evidence comes from engineering forums and documentation. The Rpi 3/4/5 processor has ARM TrustZone capabilities. However, the Rpi board lacks the necessary hardware to implement it securely (e.g., for secure memory or peripheral isolation). Any use of OP-TEE or TrustZone on an Rpi “DOES NOT result in a secure implementation”.³ An Rpi Engineer stated bluntly: “The Rpi silicon just can’t do it”.⁴
• No Secure Key Storage: The Rpi 5 lacks a Secure Enclave. It has One-Time Programmable (OTP) memory where a key can be stored. But this key is accessible to any process with kernel access (/dev/vcio).⁵ If an attacker gains root access, they can access this key. This is not hardware isolation.
• Physical (Burglary) Vulnerability: This is the Rpi’s most glaring failure and directly addresses a key part of the query. An attacker with physical access wins. The “security” is the SD card.⁶ Community defenses are non-serious: tamper-evident tape, security screws, or “boring boxes”.⁴³ An attacker can simply take the SD card.³⁵
• The Firmware “Blob”: The SeedSigner project acknowledges that the Rpi relies on closed-source firmware blobs (e.g., for the GPU), which is a “fair criticism”.²⁸ They accept this risk, arguing a supply-chain attack is unlikely.²⁸ This is a risk-acceptance posture, not a technical defense.

2.3 Deep Dive: The Apple M5 “Fortress” Architecture

Apple’s security is foundational, integrating hardware, software, and services.⁸ The M5 chip, announced Oct 15, 2025 ¹⁹, is the pinnacle of this.

• The Secure Enclave (SEP): This is the core differentiator. It is a dedicated secure subsystem.⁷ It is not just a TEE; it is a full, isolated co-processor.
• Total Isolation: The SEP has its own Boot ROM (hardware root of trust) and its own processor (SEP). This helps prevent side-channel attacks that exploit shared cores.⁷ It runs its own microkernel (sepOS).⁸
• Encrypted Memory: The SEP’s memory is encrypted with a random, ephemeral key generated at boot. The system authenticates and replay-protects all memory it uses.⁸ This means even if the main OS kernel is compromised, it cannot read the SEP’s memory.⁷
• Secure Key Storage: The SEP contains a per-device Unique ID (UID) fused during manufacturing, which Apple never exposes.⁸ This UID is the root of the cryptographic key hierarchy that protects all user data (e.g., FileVault keys).
• Advanced Defenses: The SEP is specifically designed to resist physical attacks, including “clock and power attacks” (fault injection) ⁷ and power analysis.³⁷ Furthermore, new Apple silicon features Memory Integrity Enforcement (MIE). This is a hardware-level, always-on protection against memory-corruption exploits in the main OS.³³
• Physical (Burglary) Security: An M5 Mac is exceptionally secure against a burglary. The data is encrypted on the SSD, and the keys are protected by the Secure Enclave. Without the user’s password, the data is inaccessible.⁸

2.4 Red Flag: The “GoFetch” Vulnerability (Apple’s “Massive Issue”)

The query’s suspicion about Apple’s security is justified. A major, “unpatchable” vulnerability known as GoFetch was discovered in the M1, M2, and M3 series chips.⁹

• The Flaw: GoFetch is a microarchitectural side-channel attack that exploits the Data Memory-dependent Prefetcher (DMP). The DMP tries to speed up the CPU by pre-loading data. In doing so, it can be tricked into leaking data related to cryptographic keys.⁹
• The Impact: This attack breaks constant-time cryptographic implementations. It allows an attacker with user-level code execution to extract secret keys (e.g., from OpenSSL).¹⁰
• “Unpatchable”: Because the flaw is in the silicon design, it cannot be fixed with a software update.⁹ The only mitigations are for third-party software developers to implement defenses. These defenses either cripple performance ⁹ or disable the DMP via a special bit (available on M3), which also degrades performance.⁴⁹
• Crucial Distinction: This attack does not compromise the Secure Enclave.⁵⁰ It compromises cryptographic operations running on the main Application Processor (AP).
• The M5 “Dog That Didn’t Bark”: The M4 chip, released in May 2024 ⁵¹, was likely too far in development when GoFetch was disclosed, so it is presumed to be vulnerable.⁵² The M5 was just announced on October 15, 2025.¹⁹ Apple’s press materials are completely silent on a hardware-level fix for the DMP.¹⁹ This silence is deafening. It strongly implies the M5’s main CPU is still untrusted for high-security cryptographic operations.

This leads to a fundamental conclusion.

The Rpi (SeedSigner) model optimizes for a remote, supply-chain, or “trusted-third-party” threat. It completely fails against a “burglary” (physical) threat.⁶

The Apple M5 model optimizes for the physical threat ⁸ and the local software threat (malware ³³).

It fails against a microarchitectural (GoFetch ¹⁰) threat on the main CPU. It also fails against a network-dependency (iCloud ¹³) threat, as Phase 5 will show.

---

PHASE 3: INVESTIGATING FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS ASPECTS

This phase follows the money to understand the motivations of the entities involved. The security postures from Phase 2 are a direct result of these motivations.

3.1 Entity Analysis: The SeedSigner Project

• Business Model & Leadership: The project is FOSS, volunteer-driven, and funded by donations.³⁰ The lead developer is Keith Mukai ²⁴, and the pseudonymous founder, “Seed,” is a former digital forensic examiner.⁵⁵
• Corporate Structure & Motivation: There is no corporation. The motivation is ideological and forensic. The founder’s 15-year background in law enforcement forensics ⁵⁵ directly informed the “amnesiac” or “stateless” design. He “watched this arms race between phone manufacturers and… hackers” and “felt like I’d seen this movie before” with hardware wallets.⁵⁵
• Forensic Countermeasure: SeedSigner is not just a “secure wallet”; it’s a forensic countermeasure. It’s designed to be “stateless” ⁵⁵ so that if it’s seized, it contains no evidence. This motivation (avoiding seizure/analysis) is different from only securing keys, and explains the total disregard for persistent storage.

3.2 Entity Analysis: Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd.

• Business Model & Market: A high-volume, low-cost computer manufacturer. Their primary market is not enthusiasts; 70% of sales are for industrial and embedded use.⁴²
• Funding & Investors: The company is a commercial entity that has raised at least $45M in funding.⁵⁶ Its strategic investors include Arm and Sony Semiconductor Solutions.⁵⁶
• Motivation: Their motivation is market expansion and industrial compliance. Their security focus is on meeting standards like the EU’s RED-DA ⁵⁷ to sell into the IoT market. They are not motivated to build a high-security, tamper-proof device for crypto-anarchists. They are motivated to build a cheap, compliant controller for their real customers (industrial IoT, AgriTech, etc.).⁴²

3.3 Entity Analysis: Apple Inc.

• Business Model & Motivation: Apple is a vertically integrated, closed-ecosystem hardware/software/services company. Security is a primary marketing tool and a powerful lock-in mechanism.⁸
• Transparency & Secrecy: Apple’s corporate policy is “security through obscurity.” It “doesn’t disclose, discuss, or confirm security issues” until a patch is ready.58 This is not for user security; it is for brand management.This policy allows Apple to control the narrative. It does this by grouping vulnerability disclosures into major OS updates 41 and “sweeping issues under the radar.”
• Security as Lock-In: Apple’s security model ⁸ is not designed to empower the user with sovereignty. It’s designed to protect the user within Apple’s ecosystem. The Secure Enclave, Face ID, and Apple ID are all mechanisms to tie the user’s identity and data to Apple’s high-margin hardware and services (iCloud). This model is fundamentally antithetical to the trustless, self-sovereign ethos of cold storage.

---

PHASE 4: ANALYZING EXTERNAL INFLUENCES & AI-LEVEL ADVERSARIES

This phase analyzes the risks from the “AI-level adversaries” specified in the query. This introduces two new threat vectors: 1) adversaries using AI to attack, and 2) adversaries attacking the new AI hardware itself.

4.1 The M5’s New AI-Centric Attack Surface

• An “AI-First” Chip: The M5 is explicitly an “AI-first” chip.¹⁹ The “next big leap” is in AI performance.¹⁹
• New Hardware, New Risks: This is not just the existing Neural Engine (ANE). The M5 introduces “Neural Accelerators in each GPU core”.¹⁹ This distributes AI processing across the chip, massively expanding the potential hardware attack surface for AI-specific exploits.¹²
• Emerging AI Hardware Vulnerabilities: Apple is deploying this new hardware just as researchers are discovering novel AI hardware attacks. In late October 2025, researchers identified the “first hardware vulnerability that allows… attacking AI privacy via hardware”.¹¹ This attack, “GATEBLEED,” exploits ML accelerators by monitoring timing functions to steal private training data.¹¹
• Untested Vector: These AI accelerators (ANE, GPU-NA) are complex “black boxes” that handle sensitive data. They are a new, poorly understood vector for attacks like Hardware Trojans (HT) ⁶⁴ and other side-channels.⁶⁵

The M5’s focus on AI is a liability, not a feature, for cold storage. This new, complex, and unproven AI hardware ²⁰ creates a new and untested attack surface.¹¹ This surface is completely irrelevant to the simple, decades-old cryptographic task of signing a Bitcoin transaction.

4.2 The “AI-Level Adversary”: Redefined

For the purpose of this analysis, an ‘AI-level adversary’ is redefined as not just a state actor, but an adversary using AI-/ML-based techniques. This includes:

• AI-Powered Side-Channels: Using ML to clean up and decode “noisy” covert channel data ¹¹ (e.g., from power, thermal, or EM emissions ⁶⁸).
• AI-Powered Code Analysis: Using LLMs to find novel vulnerabilities in crypto wallet code or the QR-parsing libraries.³⁹
• AI-Powered Network Attacks: Crafting sophisticated, adaptive “chain attacks” or other malware.⁶⁹
• Attacking “Air-Gaps”: Even a “true” air-gap is vulnerable to a sophisticated adversary. Research has proven data exfiltration from air-gapped computers via the electromagnetic radiation from RAM sticks (the “RAMBO” attack).⁷² Other vectors include thermal and acoustic channels.⁶⁸ An AI-level adversary would be uniquely skilled at decoding the low-bitrate, high-noise signals from these covert channels.

4.3 Geopolitical & State-Actor Risks

• AI as a “Dual-Use” Technology: The M5 is a state-of-the-art AI accelerator. AI hardware is a strategic, dual-use asset.⁷³ This makes it a high-value target for state actors, both for exploitation and for supply-chain interdiction.⁷⁴ This risk is amplified by Apple’s reliance on TSMC in the geopolitically sensitive Taiwanese corridor.
• Apple as a State-Level Target: Apple’s ecosystem is already a target for sophisticated, “mercenary-grade” exploits. A vulnerability (CVE-2025-43200) was reportedly used in an “extremely sophisticated attack against specific targeted individuals”.⁴⁰ Apple’s own bug bounty program is now targeting this level of exploit.⁷⁵

Conversely, the Rpi 5’s simplicity is a factor. Its lack of sophisticated AI accelerators ⁷⁶ and its absence of a DMP make it immune to this entire class of modern, complex microarchitectural attacks (GoFetch, GATEBLEED). Its “dumbness” is its (only) defense.

---

PHASE 5: PROBING FOR BLACK SWANS AND BLIND SPOTS (THE “WHY NOT APPLE?” FALLACY)

This phase directly addresses the query’s core blind spot: “Why aren’t more folks recommend[ing] Apple instead of Rpi?… there’s got to be a way to airgap an Apple M-series computer.”

The answer is that this assumption is fundamentally incorrect.

5.1 Challenging the “Air-Gap” Assumption: The Futility of an Offline Mac

The query’s premise is that the Rpi is chosen only because it’s “easier and cheaper to airgap” (User Query). This is a critical misunderstanding. The Rpi is chosen because it is possible to air-gap.

The Apple M5 Mac is architecturally hostile to the very concept.

An Apple device is not a computer in the traditional sense. It is a terminal for Apple’s ecosystem.

• The iCloud/Apple ID Dependency: Apple’s security model is not built for offline use. It is ecosystem-centric. An Apple ID is required for core OS functions, updates, and software installation.¹⁵ This ID syncs sensitive data (contacts, messages, location, and even file data via “Optimize Storage”) by default.¹³
• Ecosystem Vulnerabilities: This “walled garden” is itself a vulnerability. Flaws in the TCC framework ⁸⁰ and iCloud ⁴⁰ have allowed attackers to bypass security and access user data. An “extremely sophisticated attack” ⁴⁰ was known to exploit iCloud Links. The system’s default state is to be networked and synced.
• The “Impossible” Offline Install: A true cold-storage device must be built from a trusted, verifiable, offline source. A Mac fights this.Reinstalling macOS requires an internet connection to download the OS. It also requires an Apple ID to authorize it.15 Even setting up a new Mac without an Apple ID is a non-standard workaround 82, not a supported feature.
• Hardware Connectivity: A true air-gap is physical.83 On an Rpi Zero, this is achieved by not having the hardware.23On an M5 Mac, the WiFi, Bluetooth, and cellular (C1X modem, N1 chip) 84 controllers are deeply integrated. Disabling them via software 85 is not a true air-gap, as kernel-level malware could re-enable them.Enterprise MDM solutions can block USB storage.86 However, this is a software restriction, not a physical one.

This fundamental architectural incompatibility with the core principle of cold storage is the real reason Apple devices are not recommended. It is not about price. It is about control. The user cannot achieve sovereignty on a platform designed to deny it.

5.2 The “Dog That Didn’t Bark”: Where are the Security Experts?

The query’s premise (“more and more… are being built”) suggests a mainstream trend. The data shows the opposite.

• Mainstream Reviews: Top-tier security researchers (PatrickAlphaC ⁸⁹) and major security firms (Trail of Bits, NCC Group ⁹¹) are retained to audit commercial hardware wallets (Ledger, Trezor, Coldcard, Tangem).⁹⁰
• The Silence: These experts do not review or recommend DIY Rpi solutions. This is a massive “dog that didn’t bark.” The real experts in the field are not touching this trend.
• Negative Reviews: WalletScrutiny, a key community resource, has previously listed SeedSigner as “unreproducible” (a major red flag). It also states it does not meet their criteria for a hardware wallet that “protects the private keys”.⁹⁵

This indicates the Rpi trend is a symptom of a philosophical schism, not a broad technical consensus.

5.3 Reviewing Biases: The “Over-Extension” Risk

• The Narrative Fallacy: The Rpi community is swayed by the narrative of FOSS (Phase 1) and “security by subtraction” (Phase 2). This leads them to ignore the fact of the Rpi’s fundamental hardware insecurity.³
• The “Expert” Blind Spot: The Rpi/SeedSigner model is complex for a non-technical user. It requires:
  • Sourcing parts.⁹⁷
  • Verifying software hashes.¹⁷
  • Correctly managing a stateless workflow where the user is the only backup.³²
• Antonopoulos’s Warning: Renowned Bitcoin expert Andreas Antonopoulos explicitly warns against this. He states that “pushing people to overextend their technical skill” is a massive risk.⁹⁸ The most likely way to lose crypto is not a state-level hack, but user error.⁹⁸ A DIY solution maximizes the potential for catastrophic user error.

---

PHASE 6: SYNTHESIZE AND CONCLUSION

This phase connects all findings to deliver a final, evidence-based assessment.

6.1 Connecting the Dots: A Story of Two Flawed Models

The investigation shows the Rpi trend is a direct philosophical response (Phase 1) to the perceived failures of trusted, closed-source commercial wallets.²

This leads adherents to intentionally select a platform (Rpi) that offers a verifiable physical air-gap and auditable FOSS software.²⁷ In doing so, they knowingly accept its total lack of hardware-level security (Phase 2 ³) and its vulnerability to simple physical theft.⁶

Conversely, the Apple M5 platform offers vastly superior hardware-level isolation (the Secure Enclave ⁷). However, it is invalidated by both its “unpatchable” main-CPU flaw (GoFetch ¹⁰) and its architectural hostility to the core cold-storage principle of a true, offline air-gap (Phase 5 ¹³).

6.2 Summary of Red Flags: Rpi vs. Apple M5

Rpi / SeedSigner Model:

• MASSIVE RED FLAG (Hardware): No hardware-enforced security. Engineering documents explicitly state it “IS NOT SECURE” for TEE or secure boot.³
• MASSIVE RED FLAG (Physical): Zero protection against physical “burglary” attacks. An attacker with 30 seconds of access can steal the SD card and, if keys are stored, the assets.⁶
• MASSIVE RED FLAG (User): Relies 100% on user competence for software verification and safe handling. Experts warn this model is a primary vector for loss.²⁸
• Red Flag (Supply Chain): Relies on closed-source firmware “blobs” from Broadcom.²⁸

Apple M5 Model:

• MASSIVE RED FLAG (Hardware): The “GoFetch” DMP vulnerability. It is unpatchable in silicon (pre-M5) and targets the exact software (crypto apps on the main CPU) needed for this use case.¹⁰ The M5’s silence on a fix is a critical omission.¹⁹
• MASSIVE RED FLAG (Architecture): The impossibility of a true air-gap. The entire hardware/software/service stack is built on network dependency (iCloud, Apple ID) that is hostile to cold storage.¹³
• MASSIVE RED FLAG (Black Swan): The introduction of a vast, untested AI hardware attack surface (GPU Neural Accelerators).¹⁹ This is irrelevant for crypto but a prime target for AI-level adversaries.
• Red Flag (Transparency): “Security through obscurity”.⁵⁸ The user is dependent on Apple’s managed vulnerability disclosure.

6.3 Final Assessment: Answering the Core Questions

• Why Rpi over Apple? This report concludes the premise of air-gapping an Apple computer is fundamentally flawed. The M5’s entire hardware and software ecosystem is architecturally hostile to true offline use.Therefore, the Rpi is recommended by a niche community. This is not because it is more hardware-secure. It is because the Rpi is one of the few platforms that can be verifiably air-gapped and run auditable, “trustless” software. This is a philosophical choice that overrides its significant hardware weaknesses.
• Is Rpi as secure as Apple? No. Against a “burglary” (physical) attack, the Rpi is infinitely less secure. An M5 Mac has world-class, hardware-backed, full-disk encryption.⁸ The Rpi has an unencrypted SD card.⁶
• Can you report it lost? You can report a Mac (Find My). But this relies on the very online connectivity that invalidates it for cold storage. You cannot report a “stateless” SeedSigner; it is designed to be “amnesiac”.⁵⁵
• AI-Level Adversaries: The M5 is more vulnerable to a sophisticated “AI-level adversary.” This is due to its unpatched GoFetch flaw ¹⁰ and its massive new AI attack surface.¹¹ The Rpi’s “dumb” architecture ⁴ is ironically less vulnerable to these modern microarchitectural attacks. However, it remains vulnerable to classic physical ⁶ and “covert channel” ⁷² attacks.
• Is the Rpi trend fraud? No. It is a case of high-risk, “narrative-driven security.” It dangerously overestimates the technical capabilities of its user base ⁹⁸ and willfully ignores the fundamental insecurity of its chosen hardware platform.³

6.4 Unanswered Questions & Next Steps

This investigation is complete. However, one critical question for any future analysis of the M5 remains:

• The Single, Critical Unanswered Question: Did the Apple M5 microarchitecture, announced October 15, 2025 19, include a hardware-level fix for the Data Memory-dependent Prefetcher (DMP) vulnerability? Or does it still rely on the M3’s “disable bit” workaround?This question’s importance cannot be overstated. The GoFetch flaw targets the exact cryptographic operations on the main CPU that a software wallet would rely on. A hardware-level fix is the only way to restore trust to that main processor.The answer to this question determines if the M5’s main processor is viable for any cryptographic task. Apple’s silence 19 is the most significant “dog that didn’t bark” in this entire investigation.

---

PHASE 7: RECOMMENDATIONS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES

Given the significant, disqualifying flaws in both the Rpi and Apple M5 platforms for this specific use case, a separate set of recommendations is required.

7.1 Recommended Alternative Solutions

The analysis indicates that the DIY Rpi trend is a reaction to perceived flaws in commercial wallets. However, dedicated, professionally-audited hardware wallets remain the industry standard.

Security-focused users should consider:

• Audited Commercial Wallets: Products from companies like Trezor and BitBox02 are frequently recommended. They are valued for their strong security, user-friendliness, and open-source firmware.¹⁶ Trezor, in particular, is noted for its alignment with open-source values.²⁶
• Maximum Security (Bitcoin-Only): For users prioritizing security above all else, Bitcoin-only wallets like the Coldcard Mk4 are highly regarded.⁹³ These devices are designed for air-gapped operation and are favored by advanced users.¹⁶
• Professional Audits: Reputable security firms like Trail of Bits and NCC Group are retained to audit commercial wallets.⁸⁹ Users should look for products that have undergone and published such third-party audits. This is a bar that most DIY projects do not meet.

Regardless of the chosen commercial wallet, experts emphasize that general security best practices are critical:

• Secure Sourcing: Always purchase devices directly from the manufacturer, not a reseller, to mitigate supply-chain tampering risks.⁹⁹
• Seed Phrase Security: The recovery seed phrase is the master key. It must be generated on the device and never typed into a networked computer or photographed. It should be stored physically, separate from the device itself.⁹⁹
• Test the Backup: Users should always test their recovery words. For example, they can initialize a spare or wiped device to confirm the backup is correct before transferring significant funds.⁹⁹
• Verify Integrity: Use vendor-provided software to verify the device’s integrity and attestation upon receipt. Ensure all software used to communicate with it is authentic.⁹⁹

7.2 Mitigation Strategies for Flawed Options

If one must choose between the two analyzed (and not recommended) platforms, the mitigation strategies are severe and highlight the platforms’ weaknesses.

• Mitigating the Rpi (SeedSigner) Model: This model’s security rests entirely on the user.
  • User-as-Security-Layer: The user is 100% responsible for verifying the authenticity and integrity of the downloaded software.¹⁷ This is a primary risk vector.
  • Physical Security: The device has no physical tamper resistance.³⁵ It must be treated like a “stateless” device.¹⁷ The seed phrase (or its QR code backup) must be secured as the primary asset, as the device itself offers no protection.³⁴
  • Acknowledge User-Error Risk: Renowned experts like Andreas Antonopoulos specifically warn against “pushing people to overextend their technical skill”.⁹⁸ They note that user error is the most likely cause of loss.⁹⁸ This DIY model maximizes that specific risk.
• Mitigating the Apple M5 Model: This model’s security is compromised by its own hardware and ecosystem.
  • Address GoFetch: The only mitigation for the GoFetch flaw is at the software level.¹⁰² Cryptographic software developers must patch their applications to avoid operations on the main CPU. This often results in a significant performance decrease.⁹ The Secure Enclave itself is not believed to be affected.⁵⁰
  • Address Air-Gap Hostility: A true air-gap is practically impossible. It would require not using an Apple ID.¹⁰³ It would also require attempting to disable all deeply integrated networking hardware (Wi-Fi, Bluetooth).⁸⁵ Reinstalling the OS itself requires an internet connection and Apple ID authorization.¹⁵ This makes a verifiable offline build a non-starter.

7.3 Areas for Future Research

• M5 GoFetch Status: This remains the most critical area for future research. The primary unanswered question is whether the M5 chip includes a hardware-level fix for the GoFetch DMP vulnerability.⁵²
• AI Hardware Security: The massive expansion of on-chip AI accelerators (like the M5’s Neural Accelerators in each GPU core ¹⁹) creates a new, unstudied attack surface.¹¹ Research into novel side-channel ¹¹ or fault-injection ⁶⁴ attacks on this specific AI hardware is critical.

Works Cited

1. CoinTracker. (n.d.). Trezor vs. Ledger: Which Is the Best Hardware Wallet? Cointracker.io. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.cointracker.io/blog/trezor-vs-ledger
2. Reddit User “suplafan”. (c. 2025). Just moved from ledger to SeedSigner. Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1jo60dd/just_moved_from_ledger_to_seedsigner/
3. OP-TEE authors. (n.d.). Raspberry Pi 3. Readthedocs.io. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://optee.readthedocs.io/en/latest/building/devices/rpi3.html
4. Raspberry Pi Forums User “Tombosco”. (2018). Re: Secure Boot with RaspberryPi and Trust Zones. Raspberry Pi Forums. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=199826
5. Raspberry Pi Forums User “cleverca22”. (2022). Re: Raspberry Pi 5 secure element. Raspberry Pi Forums. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=337394
6. Zymbit. (2020). Why your Raspberry Pi needs a security module. Zymbit.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.zymbit.com/2020/11/10/blog-security-module-raspberry-pi/
7. Apple Inc. (n.d.). Secure Enclave. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/guide/security/secure-enclave-sec59b0b31ff/web
8. Apple Inc. (2024). Apple Platform Security. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-security-guide.pdf
9. Poremba, S. (2025). Apple M-series chips have a hardware flaw. What’s the risk? IBM Think. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.ibm.com/think/news/apple-m-series-chips-hardware-flaw
10. GoFetch Researchers. (c. 2024). GoFetch Attack. Gofetch.fail. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://gofetch.fail/
11. NC State University News. (2025). AI Privacy Attack Exploits Hardware Vulnerability. NC State University. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://news.ncsu.edu/2025/10/ai-privacy-hardware-vulnerability/
12. Guo, C., Xiong, J., & Shi, Y. (c. 2025). A New Threat Model for AI Accelerator Generation Platforms. OpenReview.net. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://openreview.net/forum?id=ckicHjoTgf
13. Apple Inc. (n.d.). Optimize storage space on your Mac. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/optimize-storage-space-sysp4ee93ca4/mac
14. Apple Inc. (n.d.). Keep your Apple Account secure. Apple Personal Safety. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/guide/personal-safety/keep-your-apple-account-secure-ips7d5628cc5/web
15. Apple Support Community User “Ivan G-S”. (2015). Re: Reinstall OS X without CD/DVD or Apple ID. Apple Discussions. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://superuser.com/questions/959422/reinstall-os-x-without-cd-dvd-or-apple-id
16. Reddit User “suplafan”. (c. 2025). What’s the best cold storage wallet for crypto in 2025? Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.reddit.com/r/ledgerwallet/comments/1k9863t/whats_the_best_cold_storage_wallet_for_crypto_in/
17. SeedSigner Project. (n.d.). SeedSigner GitHub Repository. GitHub. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://github.com/SeedSigner/seedsigner
18. Sepio. (n.d.). Raspberry Pi Risk Analysis. Sepiocyber.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://sepiocyber.com/resources/research/raspberry-pi-risk-analysis/
19. Apple Inc. (2025). Apple unleashes M5, the next big leap in AI performance for Apple silicon. Apple Newsroom. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2025/10/apple-unleashes-m5-the-next-big-leap-in-ai-performance-for-apple-silicon/
20. CNET. (2025). Apple Boosts M5 With New ‘Neural GPU’ Architecture. CNET. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/apple-boosts-m5-with-new-neural-gpu-architecture/
21. Reddit User “[deleted]”. (c. 2023). List of DIY hardware wallet options. Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/13nn3ss/list_of_diy_hardware_wallet_options/
22. Bennet, S. (2025). Building a Bitcoin Node with a Raspberry Pi 5. Bennet.org. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://bennet.org/blog/building-a-bitcoin-node-with-raspberry-pi/
23. SeedSigner Project. (c. 2023). Positioning SeedSigner for Maximum Impact. SeedSigner.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://seedsigner.com/positioning-seedsigner-for-maximum-impact/
24. Mukai, K. (c. 2022). Response to Odell’s SeedSigner critique. Gist.github.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://gist.github.com/kdmukai/e270dd1c7b53b8daea4a9fc1ac89847c
25. Bitcoin Magazine. (c. 2024). How To Use The SeedSigner Bitcoin Wallet. Bitcoinmagazine.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://bitcoinmagazine.com/guides/how-to-use-the-seedsigner-bitcoin-wallet
26. CoinLedger. (2024). Ledger vs. Trezor: Which Is Better in 2025? Coinledger.io. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://coinledger.io/tools/ledger-vs-trezor
27. Bitcoin.org. (n.d.). SeedSigner Hardware Wallet. Bitcoin.org. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/hardware/seedsigner/
28. SeedSigner Project. (n.d.). SeedSigner Independent Custody Guide. SeedSigner.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://seedsigner.com/seedsigner-independent-custody-guide/
29. Koinly. (2025). Trezor vs Ledger: Which Crypto Hardware Wallet is Best? Koinly.io. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://koinly.io/blog/trezor-vs-ledger/
30. SeedSigner Project. (n.d.). SeedSigner Official Website. SeedSigner.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://seedsigner.com/
31. Raspberry Pi Forums User “jamesh”. (2018). Re: RPi3 TrustZone secure implementation. Raspberry Pi Forums. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=215868
32. SeedSigner Project. (n.d.). SeedSigner Project Timeline. SeedSigner.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://seedsigner.com/project-timeline/
33. Apple Security Engineering and Architecture (SEAR). (2025). Memory Integrity Enforcement: A complete vision for memory safety in Apple devices. Apple Security Blog. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://security.apple.com/blog/memory-integrity-enforcement/
34. Econoalchemist. (n.d.). SeedSigner Tradeoffs. Github.io. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://econoalchemist.github.io/SeedSigner/
35. Raspberry Pi StackExchange User “user268396”. (c. 2015). Securing the Pi against an attacker with physical access. Raspberry Pi StackExchange. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/33594/securing-the-pi-against-an-attacker-with-physical-access
36. YouTube User “TJ FREE”. (c. 2019). DIY Raspberry Pi Zero Trezor Hardware Wallet. YouTube. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrKo0QGWIuY
37. Royal Holloway, University of London. (c. 2021). Physical Fault Injection and Side-Channel Attacks on Mobile Devices. Pure.royalholloway.ac.uk. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/files/43165354/Physical_Fault_Injection_and_Side_Channel_Attacks_on_Mobile_Devices.pdf
38. Reddit User “kyle_pc_terminator”. (c. 2017). Extracting data from a damaged iPhone via chip-off technique. DigitalForensics.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.digitalforensics.com/blog/software/extracting-data-from-a-damaged-iphone-via-chip-off-technique-part-2/
39. DARKNAVY. (c. 2024). If the person who finds a Web3 hardware wallet is a hacker. Darknavy.org. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.darknavy.org/blog/if_the_person_who_finds_a_web3_hardware_wallet_is_a_hacker/
40. Hong Kong Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Centre (HKCERT). (2025). Apple Products Security Restriction Bypass Vulnerability. HKCERT. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.hkcert.org/security-bulletin/apple-products-security-restriction-bypass-vulnerability_20250616
41. Kapko, M. (2025). Apple patches dozens of flaws in iOS 26, macOS 26. CyberScoop. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://cyberscoop.com/apple-security-updates-september-2025/
42. Raspberry Pi Investors. (c. 2025). Raspberry Pi Investor Relations. Raspberrypi.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://investors.raspberrypi.com/
43. Raspberry Pi Forums User “hippy”. (c. 2024). Re: Physical security for Pi in external environment. Raspberry Pi Forums. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=356036
44. SC Media. (2025). GoFetch: Apple chips vulnerable to encryption key-stealing attack. SCWorld.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.scworld.com/news/gofetch-apple-chips-vulnerable-to-encryption-key-stealing-attack
45. Kaspersky Lab. (2025). GoFetch: A new hardware vulnerability in Apple CPUs. Kaspersky.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/apple-cpu-encryption-vulnerability/50869/
46. Intego. (2025). Unpatchable flaw in Apple M1, M2, M3 chips: GoFetch is the new Spectre. Intego.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/unpatchable-flaw-in-apple-m1-m2-m3-chips-gofetch-is-the-new-spectre/
47. Tom’s Hardware. (2024). New chip flaw hits Apple Silicon and steals cryptographic keys. Tom’s Hardware. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/new-chip-flaw-hits-apple-silicon-and-steals-cryptographic-keys-from-system-cache-gofetch-vulnerability-attacks-apple-m1-m2-m3-processors-cant-be-fixed-in-hardware
48. Reddit User “Sidepie”. (c. 2024). Re: About that vulnerability on the M chips. Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.reddit.com/r/macbookpro/comments/1c8w2f9/about_that_vulnerability_on_the_m_chips/
49. Reddit User “StewardMcOy”. (2024). Re: Unpatchable vulnerability in Apple chip leaks secret encryption keys. Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39788385
50. MacRumors. (2024). M4 vs M5 Chip. MacRumors.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.macrumors.com/guide/m4-vs-m5-chip/
51. Reddit User “Talenus”. (c. 2024). Re: M4 chip vulnerable to GoFetch? Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/1ep4jrc/m4_chip_vulnerable_to_gofetch/
52. SeedSigner Project. (n.d.). Donate. SeedSigner.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://seedsigner.com/donate/
53. YouTube User “Talking In Bits”. (c. 2023). Talking In Bits #88 – Keith Mukai. YouTube. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igEa_Wf9bIs
54. Chepenik, C. (2025). The Freedom-First Philosophy Behind SeedSigner’s Bitcoin Hardware Wallet. Bitcoin News. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://bitcoinnews.com/interviews/freedom-philosophy-behind-seedsigners/
55. Tracxn. (2023). Raspberry Pi Funding & Investors. Tracxn.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://tracxn.com/d/companies/raspberry-pi/__YnQGC76GJ3c7mXq4QueTvwKVkZ4GDvD0zNKPo1r3Iaw/funding-and-investors
56. Raspberry Pi. (2025). Navigating the EU’s new Radio Equipment Directive. Raspberrypi.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.raspberrypi.com/news/navigating-the-eus-new-radio-equipment-directive-how-raspberry-pi-provides-an-industrial-advantage/
57. Apple Inc. (n.d.). About Apple security updates. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/en-us/102624
58. Apple Inc. (2025). About the security content of macOS Sequoia 15.4. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/en-us/122373
59. Apple Inc. (2024). About the security content of macOS Sequoia 15. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/en-us/121238
60. Apple Inc. (2025). Apple security releases. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/en-us/100100
61. Yahoo News. (2025). M5’s 12x neural performance jump marks Apple’s biggest architectural leap. Yahoo.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/m1-m5-apple-chips-shift-183200844.html
62. NCC Group. (2024). NCC Group Google E010491 Report. NCCGroup.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.nccgroup.com/media/glzdsluo/ncc_group_google_e010491_report_2024-07-12.pdf
63. Guo, C., et al. (c. 2025). A New Threat Model for AI Accelerator Generation Platforms. OpenReview.net. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://openreview.net/forum?id=ckicHjoTgf
64. Arkose Labs. (c. 2024). Why It’s So Hard to Secure AI Chips. Arkoselabs.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.arkoselabs.com/latest-news/why-its-so-hard-to-secure-ai-chips/
65. MDPI. (2024). Survey of Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities in EV Applications. MDPI.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.mdpi.com/2032-6653/16/7/364
66. arXiv. (2025). Security Analysis of AI Accelerators. Arxiv.org. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://arxiv.org/html/2503.07568v1
67. Edge AI. (c. 2023). Building Tamper-Resistant IoT Devices. Medium.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://medium.com/@edge-ai/building-tamper-resistant-iot-devices-best-practices-for-hardware-security-81f4e11aaad2
68. ResearchGate. (2019). Low-Level Attacks in Bitcoin Wallets. ResearchGate. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358517797_EthClipper_A_Clipboard_Meddling_Attack_on_Hardware_Wallets_with_Address_Verification_Evasion
69. arXiv. (2025). Memory Injection Attacks on AI Agents. Arxiv.org. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://arxiv.org/html/2503.16248v3
70. NVIDIA Product Security Team. (c. 2024). Learning to Defend AI Deployments Using an Exploit Simulation Environment. NVIDIA Blog. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/learning-to-defend-ai-deployments-using-an-exploit-simulation-environment/
71. Tom’s Hardware. (2025). Researchers Snoop Data From Air-Gapped PCs’ RAM Sticks. Tom’s Hardware. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/cyber-security/researchers-snoop-data-from-air-gapped-pcs-ram-sticks-by-monitoring-em-radiation-from-23-feet-away
72. STAIR Journal. (2024). The Threat of On-Chip AI Hardware Controls. Stairjournal.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.stairjournal.com/oped/2024/5/9/the-threat-of-on-chip-ai-hardware-controls
73. Privacy International. (n.d.). The hidden threat: Privacy and security risks in chips. Privacyinternational.org. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://privacyinternational.org/long-read/5559/hidden-threat-privacy-and-security-risks-chips
74. Reddit User “IntegralPilot”. (c. 2025). A major evolution of Apple Security Bounty. Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.reddit.com/r/bugbounty/comments/1o3rt5l/a_major_evolution_of_apple_security_bounty_with/
75. Seeed Studio. (2024). Raspberry Pi AI Projects. Seeedstudio.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.seeedstudio.com/blog/2024/07/04/raspberry-pi-ai-projects/
76. pidora.ca. (c. 2024). Your Raspberry Pi 5 Can Run These Powerful OS Alternatives. Pidora.ca. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://pidora.ca/your-raspberry-pi-5-can-run-these-powerful-os-alternatives/
77. Apple Inc. (n.d.). Security and your Apple Account. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/en-us/102614
78. Apple Support Community User. (2018). How install macOS WITHOUT the original Appl. Apple Discussions. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2000020
79. Jamf Threat Labs. (2025). Crouching TCC, Hidden Danger: TCC Bypass Steals Data from iCloud. Jamf.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.jamf.com/blog/tcc-bypass-steals-data-from-icloud/
80. Apple Inc. (2023). About the security content of macOS Ventura 13.3. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/en-us/120945
81. YouTube User “Apple”. (c. 2024). Setup MacBook Air, MacBook Pro with no Apple ID. YouTube. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sCXaPxtVpg
82. SentinelOne. (n.d.). What Is an Air Gap? Sentinelone.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.sentinelone.com/cybersecurity-101/cybersecurity/what-is-an-air-gap/
83. MacRumors User “Dan Barbera”. (2025). Apple Vision Pro M5 Update. YouTube. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz-igIsgUro
84. Apple Support Community User “J D Knight III”. (2006). Re: disabling Airport, Bluetooth, iSight. Apple Discussions. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://discussions.apple.com/thread/677853
85. Apple Support Community User “varjak paw”. (2024). Re: Banning External Storage Devices. Apple Discussions. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://discussions.apple.com/thread/255884331
86. Apple Inc. (2024). Storage management declarative configuration for Apple devices. Apple Support. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://support.apple.com/guide/deployment/storage-management-declarative-configuration-dep2b9f009ed/web
87. Reddit User “[deleted]”. (c. 2023). Banning External Storage Devices to get Connected to my Mac. Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.reddit.com/r/macbook/comments/16kflw8/banning_external_storage_devices_to_get_connected/
88. Alphac, P. (2025). Top 9 Cryptocurrency Hardware Wallets for 2025: Security Researcher Review. Medium. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://patrickalphac.medium.com/top-9-cryptocurrency-hardware-wallets-for-2025-security-researcher-review-9fcb16d771e0
89. Alphac, P. (c. 2025). Security Researcher Hardware Wallet Review 2025. YouTube. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmPWxAvKYY
90. Trail of Bits. (2021). Internet Computer Security Assessment. DFINITY Foundation. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from [suspicious link removed]
91. Trail of Bits. (c. 2025). Trail of Bits Publications. GitHub. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://github.com/trailofbits/publications
92. The Block. (2025). Best crypto hardware wallets in 2025. TheBlock.co. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.theblock.co/ratings/best-crypto-hardware-wallets-in-2025-375144
93. Coin Bureau. (c. 2025). Top 6 Crypto Wallets. YouTube. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYh8XwS3Znc
94. Reddit User “giszmo”. (c. 2023). Re: List of DIY hardware wallet options. Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/13nn3ss/list_of_diy_hardware_wallet_options/
95. Wallet Scrutiny. (n.d.). SeedSigner Hardware Wallet Review. Walletscrutiny.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://walletscrutiny.com/hardware/seedsigner/
96. YouTube User “Crypto Guide”. (c. 2024). How to Build Your Own Bitcoin Hardware Wallet (SeedSigner). YouTube. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sCXaPxtVpg
97. Antonopoulos, A. (2019). Bitcoin Q&A: Are Hardware Wallets Secure Enough? YouTube. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zNVDIz6Snw
98. Trail of Bits. (2018). 10 Rules for the Secure Use of Cryptocurrency Hardware Wallets. Trailofbits.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://blog.trailofbits.com/2018/11/27/10-rules-for-the-secure-use-of-cryptocurrency-hardware-wallets/
99. SeedSigner Project. (c. 2022). SeedSigner Independent Custody Guide – Countermeasures. SeedSigner.com. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://seedsigner.com/seedsigner-independent-custody-guide/
100. Econoalchemist. (n.d.). SeedSigner Tradeoffs. Github.io. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://econoalchemist.github.io/SeedSigner/
101. GoFetch Researchers. (c. 2024). GoFetch Attack Overview. Gofetch.fail. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://gofetch.fail/
102. Reddit User “oneplane”. (c. 2025). Risks of allowing personal Apple ID on work machines. Reddit. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://www.reddit.com/r/macsysadmin/comments/1k5dnmh/risks_of_allowing_personal_apple_id_on_work/
103. Apple Support Community User “richnjax”. (2024). Apple ID on MAC requires frequent re-sign ins. Apple Discussions. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://discussions.apple.com/thread/255421738
104. Apple Support Community User “LeRoiLeon”. (2023). Re: Can’t Use Your Apple ID on This Device. Apple Discussions. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254480509
105. arXiv. (2025). Security Analysis of AI Accelerators. Arxiv.org. Retrieved November 1, 2025, from https://arxiv.org/html/2503.07568v1