Older reviews (show 17 of 20 reproducible)
Help spread awareness for build reproducibility
Please follow Mycelium 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 ¶
Disclaimer: The authors of this project have contributed to Mycelium.
Here we test if the latest version also can be reproduced, following the known procedure expressed in our test script:
Results: appId: com.mycelium.wallet signer: b8e59d4a60b65290efb2716319e50b94e298d7a72c76c2119eb7d8d3afac302e apkVersionName: 18.104.22.168 apkVersionCode: 3100003 appHash: 7532f6d0cef440cfc3a09d48d8ef099a96c093f9895ad21aa069aa60be43a06d Diff: Files /tmp/fromPlay_com.mycelium.wallet_3100003/META-INF/CERT.RSA and /tmp/fromBuild_com.mycelium.wallet_3100003/META-INF/CERT.RSA differ Revision, tag (and its signature): object e0098cde4babb860bb29c0aa613795240de6aa6b type commit tag v22.214.171.124 tagger itserg <email@example.com> 1625235171 +0300 SSL certificate fix for older devices
which is what we want to see to give this wallet the verdict: reproducible
The binary provided was reproducible from the code provided.
As part of our Methodology, we ask:Does the app we built differ from what we downloaded? If not, we tag it
If we can reproduce the app we downloaded from the public source code, with all bytes accounted for, we call the app reproducible. This does not mean we audited the code but it’s the precondition to make sure the code has relevance for the app.
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. 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.mycelium.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.mycelium.wallet&theme=auto&style=long" style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;"> </iframe>