Wallet Logo

AirGap Vault - Secure Secrets

Latest release: 3.19.0 ( 14th October 2022 ) 🔍 Last analysed 2nd November 2022 . Review might be outdated
4.2 ★★★★★
110 ratings
10 thousand
6th August 2018

Jump to verdict 

Older reviews (show 18 of 28 reproducible)

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please follow AirGap Vault - Secure Secrets and thank them for being reproducible  via their Twitter!

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 

Update 2022-11-02: While last week’s latest build coudl be reproduced, the now latest build fails to compile with our script. We have to look into what’s causing this but Too many open files looks like the build environment needs tweaking.

We ran our test script (?) which delivered these results:

===== Begin Results =====
appId:          it.airgap.vault
signer:         486381324d8669c80ca9b8c79d383dc972ec284227d65ebfe9e31cad5fd3f342
apkVersionName: 3.18.0
apkVersionCode: 44587
verdict:        reproducible
appHash:        c7c35602fd09fa04c3435dc1a5382bd872f02b7cb03f005f263e7701e5342998
commit:         1cc56548e3bf450bdf87f6440105e2d464cea29b

Diff:
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_it.airgap.vault_44587/META-INF: MANIFEST.MF
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_it.airgap.vault_44587/META-INF: PAPERS.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_it.airgap.vault_44587/META-INF: PAPERS.SF

Revision, tag (and its signature):
object 1cc56548e3bf450bdf87f6440105e2d464cea29b
type commit
tag v3.18.0
tagger Andreas Gassmann <andreas@andreasgassmann.ch> 1661770048 +0200

   v3.18.0
===== End Results =====

Which is what we want to see to give it 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 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.

But we also ask:

Does our review and verdict apply to their latest release?

If the answer is "no", we mark it as "Review might be outdated".

Verdicts apply to very specific releases of products and never to the product as a whole. A new release of a product can change the product completely and thus also the verdict. This product remains listed according to its latest verdict but readers are advised to do their own research as this product might have changed for the better or worse.

This meta verdict is applied in cases of reviews that we identify as requiring an update.

This meta verdict applies to all products with verdict “reproducible” as soon as a new version is released until we test that new version, too. It also applies in cases where issues we opened are marked as resolved by the provider.

If we had more resources, we would update reviews more timely instead of assigning this meta verdict ;)