Bitcoin Wallet (Schildbach) latest release: 8.14 last analysed 1st June 2021
(Actually "Bitcoin Wallet". For details read below.)
Older reviews (show 17 of 17 reproducible)
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 ¶
For the latest version the test script came to these results:
Results: appId: de.schildbach.wallet signer: 58dcd8a0edf2a590683ba022d22a8dca5659aabf4728741a5c07af738d53db38 apkVersionName: 8.14 apkVersionCode: 814 appHash: e4f9be85ecbac8a418ec4f2d1577f1cea0c265f1b0cd501408c3ec993213ef08 Diff: Files /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_814/apktool.yml and /tmp/fromBuild_de.schildbach.wallet_814/apktool.yml differ Only in /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_814/original/META-INF: BITCOIN-.RSA Only in /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_814/original/META-INF: BITCOIN-.SF Files /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_814/original/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and /tmp/fromBuild_de.schildbach.wallet_814/original/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF differ Revision, tag (and its signature): object be2eeeda88c31e362b80efcecb4804cabf8fff39 type commit tag v8.14 tagger Andreas Schildbach <firstname.lastname@example.org> 1622386825 +0200 8.14 release
That is what we expected to again give this app 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/de.schildbach.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/de.schildbach.wallet&theme=auto&style=long" style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;"> </iframe>