Wallet Logo

Green: Bitcoin Wallet

latest release: 3.5.4 last analysed  1st April 2021
Reproducible when tested
3.7 ★★★★★
765 ratings
1st January 2015


Our last analysis is based on data found in their Play Store description and their website and their source repository. We discuss issues with the provider here.
details below 

Older reviews (show 15 of 16 reproducible)

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please follow Green: 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.

If you find something we should include, you can create an issue or edit this analysis yourself and create a merge request for your changes.

The Analysis

With this script we get:

appId:          com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet
signer:         32f9cc00b13fbeace51e2fb51df482044e42ad34a9bd912f179fedb16a42970e
apkVersionName: 3.5.4
apkVersionCode: 22000354
apkHash:        4ed9729881676b84d7ed65b0f0bd583c11c465186e896e96888c5d323e8c5002

Files /tmp/fromPlay_com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet_22000354/apktool.yml and /tmp/fromBuild_com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet_22000354/apktool.yml differ
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet_22000354/original/META-INF: GREENADD.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet_22000354/original/META-INF: GREENADD.SF
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet_22000354/original/META-INF: MANIFEST.MF

Revision, tag (and its signature):
object 81f04a059d23f9447176c538f775d5aef5cb09af
type commit
tag release_3.5.4
tagger Luca Vaccaro <me@lvaccaro.com> 1616626426 +0100

Release 3.5.4

which is what we want to see to give this wallet the verdict: reproducible


Verdict Explained

Reproducible when tested

At the time of this analysis, the app as downloaded from the platform was reproducible from the code provided by the developers!

The app can be independently verified. 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 app 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.

To understand why some lines of difference are ok and others not one has to consider how app signing works. Android supports currently 3 signing schemes and in version 1 signing the signature is put inside the application file. As the tester must not have the release signing key, those files necessarily are missing or differ from the version on Google Play. The file "apktool.yml" was never part of the app and is generated by the analysis tool "apktool".