Wallet Logo

Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

latest release: ( 19th July 2021 ) last analysed  19th July 2021 Reproducible when tested 
3.4 ★★★★★
2366 ratings
500 thousand
2nd March 2016

Jump to verdict 

Older reviews (show 1 of 2 reproducible)

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please follow Electrum Bitcoin Wallet 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 

Version 4.1.5 appeared on Play Store. let’s see if that is also reproducible. As for us, that version is still not available, we again go with the direct download from their website and check if that’s the same as what Google distributes later.

$ git clone https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum
$ cd electrum/
$ git checkout 4.1.5
$ wget https://download.electrum.org/4.1.5/Electrum-
$ wget https://download.electrum.org/4.1.5/Electrum-

… and now we are supposed to run contrib/android/build.sh which has 68 lines of code and calls contrib/build_tools_util.sh with its 154 lines of code.

That’s a bit too much as we want to automate reproducibility testing and don’t want to run “random” code on our infrastructure - with root privilege even. We filed an issue to adjust the build instructions accordingly but it appears to be easy enough to build without running above scripts at all:

$ cp contrib/deterministic-build/requirements-build-android.txt contrib/android/
$ docker build -t electrum-android-builder-img contrib/android/
$ docker run -it --rm \
      --name electrum-android-builder-cont \
      --volume $PWD:/home/user/wspace/electrum \
      --volume $PWD/.buildozer/.gradle:/home/user/.gradle \
      --workdir /home/user/wspace/electrum electrum-android-builder-img \
      /bin/bash -c `./contrib/android/make_apk release-unsigned`
💬 INFO:  done.
total 66024
drwxr-xr-x  2 user user     4096 Jul 20 01:04 .
drwxrwxr-x 10 user user     4096 Jul 20 01:04 ..
-rw-r--r--  1 user user 22344714 Jul 20 01:04 Electrum-
-rw-r--r--  1 user user 22228447 Jul 20 01:04 Electrum-
f1877d80655bf0302609d5a00cade13150d3cead5f7ab8d5a5522f707566cd93  /home/user/wspace/electrum/contrib/android/../../dist/Electrum-
227cb4fb61157e045313ce42087369782991bfd646d78052e9dd6a8091ad1143  /home/user/wspace/electrum/contrib/android/../../dist/Electrum-

That looks good. After unzipping the two APKs from the download and the two just built, the diffs look as follows:

$ unzip -d fromBuild32 dist/Electrum- 
$ unzip -d fromBuild64 dist/Electrum- 
$ unzip -d fromDownload32 Electrum- 
$ unzip -d fromDownload64 Electrum- 
$ diff --recursive --brief from*32
Only in fromDownload32/META-INF: CERT.RSA
Only in fromDownload32/META-INF: CERT.SF
Files fromBuild32/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and fromDownload32/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF differ
$ diff --recursive --brief from*64
Only in fromDownload64/META-INF: CERT.RSA
Only in fromDownload64/META-INF: CERT.SF
Files fromBuild64/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and fromDownload64/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF differ

And with the updated test script:

appId:          org.electrum.electrum
signer:         e543d576fa0f2a33d412bca4c7d61e2301830e956e7d947e75b9052d176027d3
apkVersionCode: 34010500
verdict:        reproducible
appHash:        de25614cc8f8fa20262f20df816634a349cf796b3e4cf026087e4dec12c15231
commit:         d8d2c180aafaec1ae9bc68c27a7d780df8de4348

Only in /tmp/fromPlay_org.electrum.electrum_34010500/META-INF: CERT.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_org.electrum.electrum_34010500/META-INF: CERT.SF
Files /tmp/fromPlay_org.electrum.electrum_34010500/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF and /tmp/fromBuild_org.electrum.electrum_34010500/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF differ

Revision, tag (and its signature):
object d8d2c180aafaec1ae9bc68c27a7d780df8de4348
type commit
tag 4.1.5
tagger ThomasV <thomasv@electrum.org> 1626708974 +0200


which is a full match except for the signature which is expected. Electrum 4.1.5 is reproducible!


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.