Wallet Logo

Green: Bitcoin Wallet

latest release: 3.6.3 last analysed  13th July 2021 Reproducible when tested  
3.8 ★★★★★
808 ratings
100thousand
1st January 2015

Jump to verdict 

Older reviews (show 18 of 21 reproducible)

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please follow Green: Bitcoin Wallet and thank them for being reproducible  via their Twitter!

Disclaimer

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:

Results:
appId:          com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet
signer:         32f9cc00b13fbeace51e2fb51df482044e42ad34a9bd912f179fedb16a42970e
apkVersionName: 3.6.3
apkVersionCode: 22000363
appHash:        6779507d1ad1da738312c43fbe6380f6d3e8947d66cd5d89de0fe62fc242217b
commit:         333ffa887a818c089873385bd6265811313899aa

Diff:
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet_22000363/META-INF: GREENADD.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet_22000363/META-INF: GREENADD.SF
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_com.greenaddress.greenbits_android_wallet_22000363/META-INF: MANIFEST.MF

Revision, tag (and its signature):
object 333ffa887a818c089873385bd6265811313899aa
type commit
tag release_3.6.3
tagger Domenico Gabriele <domenico@blockstream.com> 1625743007 +0200

Release 3.6.3

which is what we want to see to give it the verdict reproducible.

(lw)

Verdict Explained

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.