SBW: Simple Bitcoin Walletlatest release: 2.4.26 ( 13th January 2022 ) last analysed 16th January 2022 Reproducible when tested
Older reviews (show 9 of 10 reproducible)
Help spread awareness for build reproducibility
Please follow SBW: Simple Bitcoin Wallet and thank them for being reproducible via their Twitter!
The following Analysis is not a full code review! We plan to make code reviews available in the future but even then it will never be a stamp of approval but rather a list of incidents and questionable coding practice. Nasa sends probes to space that crash due to software bugs despite a huge budget and stringent scrutiny.
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 ¶
For that latest version, our test script returned this:
===== Begin Results ===== appId: com.btcontract.wallet signer: dca2c3527ec7f7c0e38c0353278e7a5674cfa6e4b7556510ff05f60073ca338a apkVersionName: 2.4.26 apkVersionCode: 94 verdict: reproducible appHash: 1995e343e5a6e89b47ae5925396dd5b0d59d8da43f0f687f7d691ef9af5f3d04 commit: e49a899aef317f1652bae95bc9bb570a59947298 Diff: Only in /tmp/fromPlay_com.btcontract.wallet_94/META-INF: BITCOINS.RSA Only in /tmp/fromPlay_com.btcontract.wallet_94/META-INF: BITCOINS.SF Files /tmp/fromPlay_com.btcontract.wallet_94/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and /tmp/fromBuild_com.btcontract.wallet_94/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF differ Revision, tag (and its signature): ===== End Results =====
The app is reproducible.
The binary provided was reproducible from the code provided.
As part of our Methodology, we ask:Does the binary we built differ from what we downloaded? If not, we tag it Reproducible
If we can reproduce the binary we downloaded from the public source code, with all bytes accounted for, we call the product reproducible. This does not mean we audited the code but it’s the precondition to make sure the public code has relevance for the provided binary.
If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, security researchers can see this if they care to look. It also means that inside the company, engineers can verify that the release manager is releasing the product based on code known to all engineers on the team. A scammer would have to work under the potential eyes of security researchers. He would have to take more effort in hiding any exploit.
“Reproducible” does not mean “verified”. There is good reason to believe that security researchers as of today would not detect very blatant backdoors in the public source code before it gets exploited, much less if the attacker takes moderate efforts to hide it. This is especially true for less popular projects.
Share onTwitter Facebook LinkedIn
Or embed a widget in your website
<iframe src="https://walletscrutiny.com/widget/#appId=android/com.btcontract.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/com.btcontract.wallet&theme=auto&style=long" style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;"> </iframe>