Wallet Logo

AirGap Vault - Tezos, Cosmos, Ethereum, Bitcoin

latest release: 3.7.0 last analysed  24th April 2021 Reproducible when tested  
4.0 ★★★★★
84 ratings
6th August 2018

Jump to verdict 

Older reviews (show 9 of 12 reproducible)

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please follow AirGap Vault - Tezos, Cosmos, Ethereum, Bitcoin and thank them for being reproducible  via their Twitter!


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 

We ran our test script which delivered these results:

appId:          it.airgap.vault
signer:         486381324d8669c80ca9b8c79d383dc972ec284227d65ebfe9e31cad5fd3f342
apkVersionName: 3.7.0
apkVersionCode: 28519
appHash:        57c362a3508f1420007fe5d0867f889a9683f0b51d746ab20067fb9e90abbc2f

Files /tmp/fromPlay_it.airgap.vault_28519/apktool.yml and /tmp/fromBuild_it.airgap.vault_28519/apktool.yml differ
Files /tmp/fromPlay_it.airgap.vault_28519/original/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and /tmp/fromBuild_it.airgap.vault_28519/original/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF differ
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_it.airgap.vault_28519/original/META-INF: PAPERS.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_it.airgap.vault_28519/original/META-INF: PAPERS.SF

Revision, tag (and its signature):
object 2c029f86025427dcb8762db7644da0fa57c9b661
type commit
tag v3.7.0
tagger Andreas Gassmann <andreas@andreasgassmann.ch> 1619217548 +0200


This is what we expect to see on a reproducible app.


Verdict Explained

The binary provided was reproducible from the code provided.

As part of our Methodology, we ask:

Does the app we built differ from what we downloaded? If not, we tag it Reproducible  

If we can reproduce the app we downloaded from the public source code, with all bytes accounted for, we call the app reproducible. This does not mean we audited the code but it’s the precondition to make sure the code has relevance for the app.

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 app 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.