Wallet Logo

Zap: Bitcoin Lightning Wallet

latest release: Varies with device last analysed  11th March 2021
Reproducible when tested
10thousand

Published:

Our last analysis is based on data found in their Play Store description and their website and their source repository. We discuss issues with the provider here.
details below 

Older reviews (show 1 of 2 reproducible)

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please follow Zap: Bitcoin Lightning Wallet 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

Here is the output using our test script on the binary from Google Play:

Results:
appId:          zapsolutions.zap
signer:         24a0e944a65d8cea692653e1a132a042c37be334f1b0b4200575fee6f46eca86
apkVersionName: 0.4.0-beta
apkVersionCode: 3027
apkHash:        cbf97dd8ecd9431c9ef7913eafa4f3473371d315fd18dc8d5218f44e99f72e65

Diff:
Files /tmp/fromPlay_zapsolutions.zap_3027/apktool.yml and /tmp/fromBuild_zapsolutions.zap_3027/apktool.yml differ
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_zapsolutions.zap_3027/original/META-INF: CERT.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_zapsolutions.zap_3027/original/META-INF: CERT.SF
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_zapsolutions.zap_3027/original/META-INF: MANIFEST.MF

That’s how it should look like to give it the verdict: reproducible.

About the app

This app is a remote control for lnd, the lightning network daemon. As such it is not exactly a wallet in the sense of many other wallets here as the lnd connected to, also has control over the funds but in a setup where you connect to your own lnd, Zap gets into the position of being able to steal your funds. If you have strong objections with the classification as a wallet, please open an issue on our GitLab.

(lw)

Verdict Explained

Reproducible when tested

At the time of this analysis, the app as downloaded from the platform was reproducible from the code provided by the developers!

The app can be independently verified. 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.

To understand why some lines of difference are ok and others not one has to consider how app signing works. Android supports currently 3 signing schemes and in version 1 signing the signature is put inside the application file. As the tester must not have the release signing key, those files necessarily are missing or differ from the version on Google Play. The file "apktool.yml" was never part of the app and is generated by the analysis tool "apktool".