The rapid growth of cryptocurrencies has changed the way individuals and institutions think about finance, storage, and security. Cold wallets – hardware devices disconnected from the internet – are widely considered the gold standard for securing digital assets against hacking and malware. While safer than online storage, cold wallets are not invulnerable. Two classes of risk are often overlooked: wireless intrusion and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) or electromagnetic interference (EMI) events.
This article explores the history of EMP and electromagnetic field (EMF) events, the real-world consequences for electronic systems, and why these lessons should inform how we protect modern cold wallets. It argues that advanced shielding – such as Faraday protection – is not an indulgence but an essential safeguard against a class of risks that history shows can and do occur.
Understanding Electromagnetic Pulses (EMP) and EMF Events
Electromagnetic pulses are bursts of electromagnetic energy capable of disrupting or destroying electronic circuits. These pulses can be generated by natural events, such as lightning, or by human activity, ranging from radio-frequency weapons to high-altitude nuclear detonations.
EMF (electromagnetic field) interference is a broader category, including both continuous emissions and sudden spikes that can couple into electronics. While lower-level EMF exposure often leads to data corruption or malfunctions, more powerful pulses – especially EMPs – can cause permanent damage by inducing voltages far beyond the design tolerance of semiconductors.
Modern microelectronics are particularly vulnerable. As transistors shrink and circuits become denser, the amount of energy needed to disrupt them decreases. Cold crypto wallets contain microcontrollers and memory chips susceptible to these effects.
Historical EMP Events: Lessons from the Past
The Starfish Prime Test (1962)
One of the most striking examples of EMP effects occurred on 9 July 1962, when the United States conducted the Starfish Prime nuclear test over the Pacific Ocean. The detonation, at an altitude of 400 km, generated an EMP that travelled over 1,400 kilometres away, knocking out approximately 300 streetlights in Honolulu, damaging telephone systems, and disrupting radio communications.
What made Starfish Prime significant was its demonstration that a single high-altitude detonation could produce EMP effects over a continental scale. Electronic infrastructure, even far from the blast zone, was vulnerable. In today’s context, this highlights the risk to small but valuable personal devices such as hardware wallets: if streetlights and telecoms were compromised, consumer electronics would stand little chance without shielding.
Soviet Nuclear EMP Tests (1960s)
The Soviet Union carried out a series of high-altitude tests similar to Starfish Prime. Declassified documents reveal that EMP effects were observed over large areas of Kazakhstan, including the destruction of a power plant and the failure of long-distance communications equipment.
These events underline that EMP is not theoretical but an observed and reproducible phenomenon. Civil infrastructure was affected, and the lessons continue to inform military hardening of electronics. For individual crypto users, the parallel is clear: unprotected hardware is a single point of failure when subjected to electromagnetic disruption.
Non-Nuclear EMP Incidents
While nuclear detonations are the most dramatic source, EMP-like effects have been observed in non-nuclear contexts. During the 1980s and 1990s, research into radio-frequency (RF) weapons demonstrated that directed bursts could disable or disrupt computers, telecommunications, and even automotive electronics.
For example, testing at the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground showed that relatively compact systems could induce failures in unshielded electronics at distance. Civilian accounts of bank machines rebooting or losing functionality during such tests add real-world illustrations of vulnerability.
Natural Events: The 1989 Quebec Blackout
On 13 March 1989, a geomagnetic storm caused by a coronal mass ejection from the Sun induced currents in power grids, leading to the collapse of Hydro-Québec’s transmission system. In less than two minutes, the entire province of Quebec lost power, leaving millions without electricity for nine hours.
Although this was a geomagnetic event rather than a high-frequency EMP, the mechanism was similar: induced currents in conductive systems caused widespread failure. While the scale differed, the principle holds – external electromagnetic phenomena can cripple critical infrastructure with little warning.
Modern EMF Vulnerabilities in Electronics
Data Corruption and Memory Errors
Laboratory studies have shown that even moderate EMF exposure can flip bits in memory, corrupting stored data. Cold wallets rely on flash memory or secure elements to hold private keys; corruption in this storage could render a crypto hardware wallet unusable or cause partial data loss, effectively cutting off access to funds.
Wireless Attack Surface
Although cold wallets are often marketed as being offline, many incorporate Bluetooth, or near-field communication (NFC) features for convenience. These interfaces present a wireless attack surface. Security researchers have demonstrated that improperly implemented Bluetooth stacks can be exploited remotely, while NFC has been shown to leak information under certain conditions.
An EMF event combined with such wireless interfaces increases risk: malicious actors could combine interference with wireless probing to compromise devices in ways users never anticipate.
Why Cold Crypto Wallets Require EMP and Wireless Protection
The value of crypto-assets stored in cold wallets can be substantial, sometimes representing life savings or institutional reserves. Yet the physical security model often focuses on preventing theft or unauthorised physical access. Far less attention is paid to electromagnetic protection, despite decades of evidence that electronics fail under such stress.
By protecting cold wallets in a Faraday enclosure designed for EMF shielding, users add a critical layer of resilience. This prevents not only opportunistic wireless probing but also rare, high-impact events such as EMP surges. In effect, it converts the cold wallet from a vulnerable consumer device into a hardened secure module.
Case Studies: Relevance of Historical Events to Today’s Devices
- Honolulu Streetlights (1962): If EMP from Starfish Prime could disable lighting circuits, consider the effect on delicate modern microcontrollers. Hardware wallets, which depend on stable voltage levels, are inherently more fragile.
- Soviet Grid Failures: Entire power plants were compromised by induced voltages. If industrial-scale systems suffered, small-scale consumer electronics are equally at risk.
- Aberdeen RF Tests: Compact, non-nuclear systems were able to disrupt everyday electronics. This demonstrates that EMP-style interference is not confined to extreme scenarios.
- Quebec Blackout (1989): A naturally occurring geomagnetic event incapacitated power grids. Although different in frequency spectrum, it illustrates how external electromagnetic energy can cascade into technological failure.
Together, these examples form a body of evidence: EMP and EMF events are not rare curiosities but recorded, damaging realities.
Addressing Common Objections
“EMP Is Too Rare to Worry About”
It is true that nuclear EMP events are rare, but non-nuclear EMF and interference incidents are increasingly common. Everyday risks include powerful transmitters, malicious RF weapons, and even solar storms. Given the value often stored in cold wallets, the cost–benefit analysis leans strongly towards protection.
“Hardware Wallets Are Already Safe”
Cold wallets are widely considered secure, yet no device is entirely hack-proof. Their threat model excludes EMP and high-powered EMF. Without shielding, they remain vulnerable to classes of attack outside conventional cybersecurity.
Practical Recommendations
- Choose Quality Faraday Protection: A properly constructed Faraday bag provides shielding against Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, RF, and EMP. Cheap imitations often block only partially — often letting Bluetooth pass through — and may offer no real EMP protection at all.
- Avoid Wireless Interfaces: Where possible prefer wired-only connections.
- Stay Informed: Monitor research and incidents related to EMP and EMF effects. Awareness is the first line of defence.
The history of electromagnetic pulse and interference events demonstrates one fact with clarity: electronics are vulnerable. From the lights of Honolulu extinguished in 1962, to the collapse of Quebec’s power grid in 1989, to the laboratory tests of directed energy systems, the evidence is overwhelming.
Cold wallets are no exception. As valuable as they are, their microelectronics are fragile, and they represent single points of failure for crypto holders. To dismiss EMP and EMF risks is to ignore decades of evidence – evidence that should inform prudent, forward-looking security practices.
The adoption of Faraday shielding for cold wallets represents not paranoia but responsibility. It recognises that true digital security extends beyond software into the physical domain of electromagnetic resilience. As history teaches, those who prepare for these threats are the ones whose technology – and assets – endure.
References
- Glasstone, S. & Dolan, P. (1977). The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. U.S. Department of Defense.
- U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1979). The Effects of Nuclear War.
- Savage, E., Gilbert, J., & Radasky, W. (2010). The Early-Time (E1) High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) and Its Impact on the U.S. Power Grid. Metatech Corporation.
- North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) (1996). Radio Frequency Directed Energy Weapons.
- Boteler, D.H. (1998). “Geomagnetic Storms and Their Effects on Power Systems.” IEEE Power Engineering Review.
- Kappenman, J. (2010). Geomagnetic Storms and Their Impacts on the U.S. Power Grid. Metatech Corporation.