Do your own research!
Try out searching for "lost bitcoins", "stole my money" or "scammers" together with the wallet's name, even if you think the wallet is generally trustworthy. For all the bigger wallets you will find accusations. Make sure you understand why they were made and if you are comfortable with the provider's reaction.
The Analysis ¶
Statements on the provider’s website, suggest the private keys are in control of the user. However the project is not open source. This is validated by a commment from the provider on a play store review.
“NOT OPEN SOURCE, THEREFORE NO PROOF OF ANYTHING RELATING TO SECURITY. ANY, & ALL BLAB ABOUT SECURITY IS COMPLETELY MOOT, WITHOUT IT BEING OPEN SOURCE. CHECKMATE. IT WANTS EMAIL, HAHAHAHAHA!!! WHAT A BUNCH OF FOOLS!!! ONLY A DAMNED FOOL WOULD PUT MONEY IN THIS APP.”
Hey there! Thank you for your input. We are aware that it is a very sensitive topic to most users and that it is mostly a breaking point for most crypto enthusiasts. Due to the character limit, all we can say is that building a deep and complex architecture for three years to steal people’s keys is not that promising or profitable as a venture. :)
Also to note there is an iphone download link on the providers website, however this is not working. We cannot verify if there is an iphone version at this stage.
Our verdict: As there is no source code to be found anywhere, this wallet is at best a non-custodial closed source wallet and as such not verifiable.
Without public source of the reviewed release available, this product cannot be verified!
As part of our Methodology, we ask:Is the source code publicly available? If not, we tag it
A wallet that claims to not give the provider the means to steal the users’ funds might actually be lying. In the spirit of “Don’t trust - verify!” you don’t want to take the provider at his word, but trust that people hunting for fame and bug bounties could actually find flaws and back-doors in the wallet so the provider doesn’t dare to put these in.
Back-doors and flaws are frequently found in closed source products but some remain hidden for years. And even in open source security software there might be catastrophic flaws undiscovered for years.
An evil wallet provider would certainly prefer not to publish the code, as hiding it makes audits orders of magnitude harder.
For your security, you thus want the code to be available for review.
If the wallet provider doesn’t share up to date code, our analysis stops there as the wallet could steal your funds at any time, and there is no protection except the provider’s word.
“Up to date” strictly means that any instance of the product being updated without the source code being updated counts as closed source. This puts the burden on the provider to always first release the source code before releasing the product’s update. This paragraph is a clarification to our rules following a little poll.
We are not concerned about the license as long as it allows us to perform our analysis. For a security audit, it is not necessary that the provider allows others to use their code for a competing wallet.
Share onTwitter Facebook LinkedIn
Or embed a widget in your website
<iframe src="https://walletscrutiny.com/widget/#appId=android/bitfreezer.app.wallet&theme=auto&style=short" name="_ts" style="min-width:180px;border:0;border-radius:10px;max-width:280px;min-height:30px;"> </iframe>
<iframe src="https://walletscrutiny.com/widget/#appId=android/bitfreezer.app.wallet&theme=auto&style=long" style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;"> </iframe>