Wallet Logo

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

latest release: Varies with device ( 19th December 2021 ) last analysed  11th January 2022 Reproducible when tested
4 ★★★★★
28639 ratings
5 million
1st March 2011

Jump to verdict 

Older reviews (show 25 of 25 reproducible)

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: 9.03
apkVersionCode: 903
verdict:        reproducible
appHash:        90ef5b1b41546d9e0c99484a398a5e6c7d509d9fdfdd09354e55d68f2f7d84bd
commit:         c43c146a339d9387fb11859599d634ecf15232d0

Diff:
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_903/META-INF: BITCOIN-.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_903/META-INF: BITCOIN-.SF
Files /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_903/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and /tmp/fromBuild_de.schildbach.wallet_903/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF differ

Revision, tag (and its signature):
object c43c146a339d9387fb11859599d634ecf15232d0
type commit
tag v9.03
tagger Andreas Schildbach  1639855261 +0100

9.03 release
===== End Results =====

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

(lw)

Verdict Explained

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 not, we tag it Reproducible

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.