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 ¶
In this app’s description we read:
- Non-Custodial. You own your wallet private keys.
A 5.0 stars rating from 957 ratings doesn’t look natural but let’s see if it’s open source.
On their website:
We are privacy activists who have dedicated our lives to creating the software that Silicon Valley will never build. We build the software that Bitcoin deserves.
which was taken almost word for word from another wallet’s website.
… which leads us to wonder if the provider is also secretive about who they are and sure enough, no mention of the people behind this product.
The domain name owner is not on public record neither:
Registrant Name: WhoisGuard Protected
Registrant Organization: WhoisGuard, Inc.
We have no problem with privacy minded providers as long as the product can be fully and easily verified. In this case we do not even find a claim of public source and the Xamarin based app contains native code, making it hard to get any insights. Anyway, by our standards it is not verifiable at all.
Without public source of the reviewed release available, this app 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 app 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 app’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/com.bitshield.bitshieldwallet&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/com.bitshield.bitshieldwallet&theme=auto&style=long" style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;"> </iframe>