Wallet Logo

Bitcoin Wallet (Schildbach)
(Actually "Bitcoin Wallet". For details read below.)

Latest release: VARY ( 4th February 2023 ) 🔍 Last analysed 12th December 2022 . Reproducible when tested
4 ★★★★★
29247 ratings
5 million
1st March 2011

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 the answer is "no", we mark it as "Reproducible when tested".

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.

Show Older Reviews

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 

For the latest version the test script (?) came to these results:

===== Begin Results =====
appId:          de.schildbach.wallet
signer:         58dcd8a0edf2a590683ba022d22a8dca5659aabf4728741a5c07af738d53db38
apkVersionName: 9.23
apkVersionCode: 923
verdict:        reproducible
appHash:        0ea97bf63ceff167b1d2a701b94c569c251b00cc1b06e98f02384e10493e202b
commit:         586b1cca72f430730f290fe8f878fdc9881cdcc3

Diff:
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_923/META-INF: BITCOIN-.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_923/META-INF: BITCOIN-.SF
Files /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_923/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and /tmp/fromBuild_de.schildbach.wallet_923/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF differ

Revision, tag (and its signature):
object 586b1cca72f430730f290fe8f878fdc9881cdcc3
type commit
tag v9.23
tagger Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> 1666196489 +0200

9.23 release
===== End Results =====

That is what we expected to again give this app the verdict reproducible.

(lw)