VegaWalletLatest release: 3.2.3 ( 2nd July 2020 ) 🔍 Last analysed 1st July 2022 . No source for current release found Not updated in a long time
Help spread awareness for build reproducibility
Please help us spread the word discussing transparency with VegaWallet via their Twitter!
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 ¶
While this might be a good thing:
- External Custodians are usually highly specialized in securing assets
- External Custodians will care about fixing issues with one client, to not lose others
- External Custodians are usually registered businesses under regulatory oversight
- External Custodians will try to protect your funds even from your wallet provider: With fraud detection, they will certainly try to avoid the emptying of all users' wallets at once
- External Custodians are extra intermediaries: Even when the wallet provider wants to let you use your money, they might turn out to be uncooperative
- External Custodians holding custody of many wallets are interesting targets for hackers and thieves
- External Custodians, being publicly registered will not be able to resist if in their jurisdiction rules on the use of Bitcoin get tightened
As External Custodians usually don't publish lists of companies they are working with and past information might be outdated, we have no way of assuring claims by wallet providers to be using their custody solution. Please let us know if you found proof that the provider is being dishonest about their business relation to External Custodians!
From the FAQ
Our wallet uses BitGo Multi-Signature Implementation to keep user funds safe. Users create an account which generates wallet addresses for currencies such as BTC, LTC, ETH, DASH, VGW, ZEC, XLM, & XRP. VegaWallet believes in user privacy and delivers the users private keys upon account verification. It is your responsibility to keep these keys safe in case of account recovery. We do not keep these keys on file.
The API’s and all point of sale and payment capabilitites will be made public to hopefully increase the mass adoption of cryptocurrency. All endpoints and integrations will however need to be linked to VegaWallet’s backend in order to provide the correct wallet creations and security integrations that we promise our users.
So they state intent to publish the wallet’s source code but as far as we can see, they haven’t done so yet. Without public source code, the product is not verifiable.
Without public source of the reviewed release available, this product cannot be verified!
As part of our Methodology, we ask:Is the source code publicly available? If not, we tag it No Source!
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 product 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 product’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. You should still prefer actual open source licenses as a competing wallet won’t use the code without giving it careful scrutiny.
But we also ask:Was the product updated during the last two years? If not, we tag it Obsolete!
Bitcoin wallets are complex products and Bitcoin is a new, advancing technolgy. Projects that don’t get updated in a long time are probably not well maintained. It is questionable if the provider even has staff at hands that is familiar with the product, should issues arise.
This verdict may not get applied if the provider is active and expresses good reasons for not updating the product.
Share onTwitter Facebook LinkedIn
Or embed a widget in your website
<iframe src="https://walletscrutiny.com/widget/#appId=android/com.vegawallet.in&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.vegawallet.in&theme=auto&style=long" style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;"> </iframe>