Wallet Logo

BitBox02

Latest release: 9.14.0 ( 23rd March 2023 ) 🔍 Last analysed 22nd May 2023 . Reproducible when tested

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.

Show Older Reviews

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please follow BitBox02 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 

The reproducibility of firmware v9.14.0 has been confirmed.

The test script yields a positive result:

$ scripts/test/hardware/bitBox2.sh 9.14.0
...
firmware.bin created at:
/home/ws/wsTest/bitbox02-firmware/temp/build/bin/firmware.bin
or
/home/ws/wsTest/bitbox02-firmware/temp/build/bin/firmware-btc.bin
Hashes of
signed download             e1b4db891bd2213192b5af424e94db1721d529ab38be5949ea6c2aa167f890c9  firmware-btc.v9.14.0.signed.bin
signed download minus sig.  76dce068cebf0dc3002ab6452381eabd1d7ece447ad9e90ac7ec4a35d49cc576  p_firmware-btc.bin
built binary                76dce068cebf0dc3002ab6452381eabd1d7ece447ad9e90ac7ec4a35d49cc576  temp/build/bin/firmware-btc.bin
firmware as shown in device 06d61dffe90f79887567f7cbe34f19dc4c667c2919dab83ae9311a7c5bcbbeea
                            (The latter is a double sha256 over version,
                             firmware and padding)

This version is reproducible.

(lw, Joko Ono, Mohammad Rafigh)