Wallet Logo

Haven - Private Shopping

Google Play

Our wallet review process

We examine wallets starting at the code level and continue all the way up to the finished app that lives on your device. Provided below is an outline of each of these steps along with security tips for you and general test results.

Developer

Website Twitter Reddit

Released

We could not determine when this product was originally released.

Custody

Self-custodial: The user holds the keys

But This product was removed from the platform.

As part of our Methodology, we ask: Is the product self-custodial?

The answer is "yes". The user has control of their own keys.
Read more

Source code

Public on github

Application build

If you have a binary for a version that doesn't appear on the list, you can drop the file here to register it so somebody can verify its reproducibility:

Drop binary file to verify

or
Learn more

Distribution

Google Play
3.7/5 stars via 394 ratings

Platform notes

On the Google Play Store, there are many apps that have Bitcoin in their name or description but don’t allow the user to use Bitcoin or they don’t look like Bitcoin wallets but turn out to be. We run our tests and document our findings.

Passed all 8 tests

We answered the following questions in this order:

Do many people use this product?

The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Few users" and the following would apply:

The answer is "no". We marked it as "Few users".

We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Few users" and the following would apply:

We focus on products that have the biggest impact if things go wrong and this one probably doesn’t have many users according to data publicly available.

Is this product the original?

The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Fake" and the following would apply:

The answer is "no". We marked it as "Fake".

We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Fake" and the following would apply:

The bigger wallets often get imitated by scammers that abuse the reputation of the product by imitating its name, logo or both.

Imitating a competitor is a huge red flag and we urge you to not put any money into this product!

The product 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 product 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.
Is it a wallet?

The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Not a wallet" and the following would apply:

The answer is "no". We marked it as "Not a wallet".

We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Not a wallet" and the following would apply:

If it’s called “wallet” but is actually only a portfolio tracker, we don’t look any deeper, assuming it is not meant to control funds. What has no funds, can’t lose your coins. It might still leak your financial history!

If you can buy Bitcoins with this app but only into another wallet, it’s not a wallet itself.

Is it for bitcoins?

The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "A wallet but not for Bitcoin" and the following would apply:

The answer is "no". We marked it as "A wallet but not for Bitcoin".

We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "A wallet but not for Bitcoin" and the following would apply:

At this point we only look into wallets that at least also support BTC.

Can it send and receive bitcoins?

The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Can't send or receive bitcoins" and the following would apply:

The answer is "no". We marked it as "Can't send or receive bitcoins".

We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Can't send or receive bitcoins" and the following would apply:

If it is for holding BTC but you can’t actually send or receive them with this product then it doesn’t function like a wallet for BTC but you might still be using it to hold your bitcoins with the intention to convert back to fiat when you “cash out”.

All products in this category are custodial and thus funds are at the mercy of the provider.

The product 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 product 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.
Is the product self-custodial?

The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Custodial: The provider holds the keys" and the following would apply:

The answer is "no". We marked it as "Custodial: The provider holds the keys".

We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Custodial: The provider holds the keys" and the following would apply:

A custodial service is a service where the funds are held by a third party like the provider. The custodial service can at any point steal all the funds of all the users at their discretion. Our investigations stop there.

Some services might claim their setup is super secure, that they don’t actually have access to the funds, or that the access is shared between multiple parties. For our evaluation of it being a wallet, these details are irrelevant. They might be a trustworthy Bitcoin bank and they might be a better fit for certain users than being your own bank but our investigation still stops there as we are only interested in wallets.

Products that claim to be non-custodial but feature custodial accounts without very clearly marking those as custodial are also considered “custodial” as a whole to avoid misguiding users that follow our assessment.

This verdict means that the provider might or might not publish source code and maybe it is even possible to reproduce the build from the source code but as it is custodial, the provider already has control over the funds, so it is not a wallet where you would be in exclusive control of your funds.

We have to acknowledge that a huge majority of Bitcoiners are currently using custodial Bitcoin banks. If you do, please:

  • Do your own research if the provider is trust-worthy!
  • Check if you know at least enough about them so you can sue them when you have to!
  • Check if the provider is under a jurisdiction that will allow them to release your funds when you need them?
  • Check if the provider is taking security measures proportional to the amount of funds secured? If they have a million users and don’t use cold storage, that hot wallet is a million times more valuable for hackers to attack. A million times more effort will be taken by hackers to infiltrate their security systems.
The product 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 product 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.
Is the source code publicly available?

The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "No source for current release found" and the following would apply:

The answer is "no". We marked it as "No source for current release found".

We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "No source for current release found" and the following would apply:

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 product 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 product’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. You should still prefer actual open source licenses as a competing wallet won’t use the code without giving it careful scrutiny.

The product 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 product 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.
Is the decompiled binary legible?

The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Obfuscated" and the following would apply:

The answer is "no". We marked it as "Obfuscated".

We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Obfuscated" and the following would apply:

When compiling source code to binary, usually a lot of meta information is retained. A variable storing a masterseed would usually still be called masterseed, so an auditor could inspect what happens to the masterseed. Does it get sent to some server? But obfuscation would rename it for example to _t12, making it harder to find what the product is doing with the masterseed.

In benign cases, code symbols are replaced by short strings to make the binary smaller but for the sake of transparency this should not be done for non-reproducible Bitcoin wallets. (Reproducible wallets could obfuscate the binary for size improvements as the reproducibility would assure the link between code and binary.)

Especially in the public source cases, obfuscation is a red flag. If the code is public, why obfuscate it?

As obfuscation is such a red flag when looking for transparency, we do also sometimes inspect the binaries of closed source apps.

As looking for code obfuscation is a more involved task, we do not inspect many apps but if we see other red flags, we might test this to then put the product into this red-flag category.

The product 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 product 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.
Haven - Private Shopping  App Store

Application build test result

Update: @StevieZollo sent a tweet:

@WalletScrutiny @LeoWandersleb it looks like you reviewed @HavenPrivacy the day before it went open source. You can find its source code here: https://github.com/OpenBazaar/haven

so we can check its source code after all. Let’s see how that goes:

Just in case, we reviewed their website again if this is the official repo but there is no link to it, so that doesn’t leave us with much hope. Also: Unless the provider endorses this repository, you should not assume it is anything official or trustworthy! Anyway …

/tmp$ git clone https://github.com/OpenBazaar/haven
Cloning into 'haven'...
remote: Enumerating objects: 12, done.
remote: Counting objects: 100% (12/12), done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (11/11), done.
remote: Total 766 (delta 2), reused 5 (delta 0), pack-reused 754
Receiving objects: 100% (766/766), 15.25 MiB | 9.58 MiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (46/46), done.
/tmp$ cd haven/
/tmp/haven(master)$ git tag
/tmp/haven(master)$ git branch 
* master
/tmp/haven(master)$ git log --oneline
ef354df (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Merge pull request #1 from OpenBazaar/add-license-1
de4cced (origin/add-license-1) Create LICENSE
2a5fe76 Update readme
f486f33 feat: havenBuildConfigFiles setup
a0a8bc8 Initial commit

So there is essentially only one revision as far as the Android app goes. Changes to license or readme should not affect the app on Android itself. The missing tag will be a problem later on though.

root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# apt install nodejs npm -y
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# npm install -g npm yarn
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# yarn
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# apt install curl
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# yarn
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# find . | grep '\.env'

At this point, the build instructions read

Copy .env file to the root directory

but according to find . | grep '\.env' there is no .env file anywhere. The instruction:

The env file should look like this:

BRANCH_KEY=
COUNTLY_ROOT_URL=
COUNTLY_APP_KEY=
STREAM_API_KEY=
STREAM_APP_ID=
HMAC_SECRET=

looks like the provider is not sharing all details necessary to build this app but let’s see what happens …

It doesn’t get better. Next we are supposed to

Copy those files into havenBuildConfigFiles folder:

AppCenter-Config.plist
GoogleService-Info.plist
appcenter-config.json
google-services.json

and again those are not files provided by the company.

So to little surprise, compiling doesn’t go all too well:

root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt/android# cd android/
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt/android# ./gradlew clean assembleRelease
...
FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':app:processReleaseGoogleServices'.
> File google-services.json is missing. The Google Services Plugin cannot function without it. 
   Searched Location: 
  /mnt/android/app/src/nullnull/release/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/src/release/nullnull/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/src/nullnull/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/src/release/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/src/nullnullRelease/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/google-services.json

* Try:
Run with --stacktrace option to get the stack trace. Run with --info or --debug option to get more log output. Run with --scan to get full insights.

* Get more help at https://help.gradle.org

Deprecated Gradle features were used in this build, making it incompatible with Gradle 7.0.
Use '--warning-mode all' to show the individual deprecation warnings.
See https://docs.gradle.org/6.5/userguide/command_line_interface.html#sec:command_line_warnings

BUILD FAILED in 4m 14s
330 actionable tasks: 299 executed, 31 up-to-date

At this point we give up and give the verdict not verifiable.

Do your own research

In addition to reading our analysis, it is important to do your own checks. Before transferring any bitcoin to your wallet, look up reviews for the wallet you want to use. They should be easy to find. If they aren't, that itself is a reason to be extra careful.