Wallet Logo

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

latest release: 8.16 ( 17th September 2021 ) last analysed  18th September 2021 Reproducible when tested 
3.9 ★★★★★
28337 ratings
5 million
1st March 2011

Jump to verdict 

Older reviews (show 20 of 20 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:

Results:
appId:          de.schildbach.wallet
signer:         58dcd8a0edf2a590683ba022d22a8dca5659aabf4728741a5c07af738d53db38
apkVersionName: 8.17
apkVersionCode: 817
verdict:        reproducible
appHash:        5357e8a57e61df80d655cc7e477ed3f07f75e8e873429e4809a0f821e6d14fa8
commit:         f14a8e8c203cee94360bfff5fa782282d3b53c25

Diff:
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_817/META-INF: BITCOIN-.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_817/META-INF: BITCOIN-.SF
Files /tmp/fromPlay_de.schildbach.wallet_817/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and /tmp/fromBuild_de.schildbach.wallet_817/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF differ

Revision, tag (and its signature):
object f14a8e8c203cee94360bfff5fa782282d3b53c25
type commit
tag v8.17
tagger Andreas Schildbach <andreas@schildbach.de> 1631883691 +0200

8.17 release

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.