Wallet Logo

Vidulum - Multi-Asset Cryptocurrency Wallet

latest release: 1.2 last analysed  29th July 2020 No source for current release found  
4.2 ★★★★★
87 ratings
1thousand
4th April 2019

Jump to verdict 

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please help us spread the word discussing transparency with Vidulum - Multi-Asset Cryptocurrency Wallet  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.

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 

On Google Play we read

As a multi-asset web wallet, users are in full control of their private keys

so we assume this app is non-custodial.

On their Website we read again

Own Your Private Keys

Private keys for cryptocurrency addresses are created client side through a proprietary method and are never stored or sent back to our servers

which is actually very scary. “Proprietary method” means non-standard method, so if this wallet stops working, there is no way to get your funds recovered on a different wallet.

On their website there is a link to a GitHub repository but that only contains one text file and no code.

The app is closed source and thus not verifiable.

(lw)

Verdict Explained

Without public source of the reviewed release available, this app 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 app 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 app’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.

The app cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The app might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.