Foundation Passport
Our wallet review process
We examine wallets starting at the code level and continue all the way up to the finished app that lives on your device. Provided below is an outline of each of these steps along with security tips for you and general test results.
Custody
Private keys generated and held by user
As part of our Methodology, we ask: Is the provider ignorant of the keys?
The answer is "yes". Private keys are generated by the user on the wallet.
Read more
Released
10th March 2022
Passed all 12 tests
We answered the following questions in this order:
The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Fake" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Fake".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Fake" and the following would apply:
The bigger wallets often get imitated by scammers that abuse the reputation of the product by imitating its name, logo or both.
Imitating a competitor is a huge red flag and we urge you to not put any money into this product!
The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Announced but never delivered" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Announced but never delivered".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Announced but never delivered" and the following would apply:
Some products are promoted with great fund raising, marketing and ICOs, to disappear from one day to the other a week later or they are one-man side projects that get refined for months or even years to still never materialize in an actual product. Regardless, those are projects we consider “vaporware”.
The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Un-Released" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Un-Released".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Un-Released" and the following would apply:
We focus on products that have the biggest impact if things go wrong and while pre-sales sometimes reach many thousands to buy into promises that never materialize, the damage is limited and there would be little definite to be said about an unreleased product anyway.
If you find a product in this category that was released meanwhile, please contact us to do a proper review!
The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Not a wallet" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Not a wallet".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Not a wallet" and the following would apply:
If it’s called “wallet” but is actually only a portfolio tracker, we don’t look any deeper, assuming it is not meant to control funds. What has no funds, can’t lose your coins. It might still leak your financial history!
If you can buy Bitcoins with this app but only into another wallet, it’s not a wallet itself.
The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "A wallet but not for Bitcoin" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "A wallet but not for Bitcoin".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "A wallet but not for Bitcoin" and the following would apply:
At this point we only look into wallets that at least also support BTC.
The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Provided private keys" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Provided private keys".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Provided private keys" and the following would apply:
The best hardware wallet cannot guarantee that the provider deleted the keys if the private keys were put onto the device by them in the first place.
There is no way of knowing if the provider took a copy in the process. If they did, all funds controlled by those devices are potentially also under the control of the provider and could be moved out of the client’s control at any time at the provider’s discretion.
The product cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The product might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Leaks Keys" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Leaks Keys".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Leaks Keys" and the following would apply:
Some people claim their paper wallet is a hardware wallet. Others use RFID chips with the private keys on them. A very crucial drawback of those systems is that in order to send a transaction, the private key has to be brought onto a different system that doesn’t necessarily share all the desired aspects of a hardware wallet.
Paper wallets need to be printed, exposing the keys to the PC and the printer even before sending funds to it.
Simple RFID based devices can’t sign transactions - they share the keys with whoever asked to use them for whatever they please.
There are even products that are perfectly capable of working in an air-gapped fashion but they still expose the keys to connected devices.
This verdict is reserved for key leakage under normal operation and does not apply to devices where a hack is known to be possible with special hardware.
The product cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The product might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Bad Interface" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Bad Interface".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Bad Interface" and the following would apply:
These are devices that might generate secure private key material, outside the reach of the provider but that do not have the means to let the user verify transactions on the device itself. This verdict includes screen-less smart cards or USB-dongles.
The wallet lacks either a screen or buttons or both. In consequence, crucial elements of approving transactions is being delegated to other hardware such as a general purpose PC or phone which defeats the purpose of a hardware wallet. For big exit scams, a companion app could always request two signatures - one for the coffee you are paying and a second to empty your wallet completely. The former could be broadcast while the latter only gets collected for later use.
Another consquence of a missing screen is that the user is faced with the dilemma of either not making a backup or having to pass the backup through an insecure device for display or storage.
The software of the device might be perfect but this device cannot be recommended due to this fundamental flaw.
The product cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The product might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "No source for current release found" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "No source for current release found".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "No source for current release found" and the following would apply:
A wallet that claims to not give the provider the means to steal the users’ funds might actually be lying. In the spirit of “Don’t trust - verify!” you don’t want to take the provider at his word, but trust that people hunting for fame and bug bounties could actually find flaws and back-doors in the wallet so the provider doesn’t dare to put these in.
Back-doors and flaws are frequently found in closed source products but some remain hidden for years. And even in open source security software there might be catastrophic flaws undiscovered for years.
An evil wallet provider would certainly prefer not to publish the code, as hiding it makes audits orders of magnitude harder.
For your security, you thus want the code to be available for review.
If the wallet provider doesn’t share up to date code, our analysis stops there as the wallet could steal your funds at any time, and there is no protection except the provider’s word.
“Up to date” strictly means that any instance of the product being updated without the source code being updated counts as closed source. This puts the burden on the provider to always first release the source code before releasing the product’s update. This paragraph is a clarification to our rules following a little poll.
We are not concerned about the license as long as it allows us to perform our analysis. For a security audit, it is not necessary that the provider allows others to use their code for a competing wallet. You should still prefer actual open source licenses as a competing wallet won’t use the code without giving it careful scrutiny.
The product cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The product might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Failed to build from source provided!" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Failed to build from source provided!".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Failed to build from source provided!" and the following would apply:
Published code doesn’t help much if the app fails to compile.
We try to compile the published source code using the published build instructions into a binary. If that fails, we might try to work around issues but if we consistently fail to build the app, we give it this verdict and open an issue in the issue tracker of the provider to hopefully verify their app later.
The product cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The product might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.The answer is "yes".
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Not reproducible from source provided" and the following would apply:
The answer is "no". We marked it as "Not reproducible from source provided".
We did not ask this question because we failed at a previous question.
If the answer was "no", we would mark it as "Not reproducible from source provided" and the following would apply:
Published code doesn’t help much if it is not what the published binary was built from. That is why we try to reproduce the binary. We
- obtain the binary from the provider
- compile the published source code using the published build instructions into a binary
- compare the two binaries
- we might spend some time working around issues that are easy to work around
If this fails, we might search if other revisions match or if we can deduct the source of the mismatch but generally consider it on the provider to provide the correct source code and build instructions to reproduce the build, so we usually open a ticket in their code repository.
In any case, the result is a discrepancy between the binary we can create and the binary we can find for download and any discrepancy might leak your backup to the server on purpose or by accident.
As we cannot verify that the source provided is the source the binary was compiled from, this category is only slightly better than closed source but for now we have hope projects come around and fix verifiability issues.
The product cannot be independently verified. If the provider puts your funds at risk on purpose or by accident, you will probably not know about the issue before people start losing money. If the provider is more criminally inclined he might have collected all the backups of all the wallets, ready to be emptied at the press of a button. The product might have a formidable track record but out of distress or change in management turns out to be evil from some point on, with nobody outside ever knowing before it is too late.Application build test result
Background
Foundation Passport is the next iteration for the Foundation Passport - Founder's Edition .
Product Description
It features the following specifications:
- Supported Cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin via PSBTs; best-in-class multisig experience.
- Supported Software Wallets: Bitcoin Core, BlueWallet, BTCPay, Casa, Electrum, Nunchuk, Simple Bitcoin Wallet, Sparrow, Specter, Wasabi, and other wallets supporting PSBTs via microSD or QR codes.
- Key Components: STM processor, Microchip 608a secure element, Omnivision Cameracube.
- Communication: Camera and microSD port. No USB data, no Bluetooth, no wireless communications of any kind.
- Power: 1200 mAh Lithium ion battery in Nokia BL-5C form factor (included with purchase).
- Security Features: Airgapped, easy passphrase entry, security lights, anti-phishing words, supply chain verification.
From Foundation’s Twitter account:
- 20% thinner design
- Standard form factor lithium-ion battery
- High resolution IPS color display bonded to ultra-hard glass
- STM processor, Microchip 608a secure element, Omnivision cameracube, and an avalanche noise source for entropy
- Physical power button
- Improved microSD slot
- Power only USB-C port
Passport now ships these accessories:
- Industrial-grade microSD card
- Removable lithium-ion battery
- microSD adapters for iOS and Android
- USB-C charging cable.
- Helps you securely and easily set up Passport.
- Keeps you up-to-date with firmware updates, no computer required!
- Provides quick and easy access to support resources.
- Let’s you send, receive, and “boost” bitcoin transactions.
Onboarding: Envoy guides the user through unboxing Passport and setting it up securely, no need for a computer
Security: Envoy primarily communicates with Passport via airgapped QR codes, ensuring that Passport is never directly connected to an online device.
Privacy: Envoy connects to Foundation’s server and Bitcoin node through Tor. Envoy offers the ability to connect to your own Bitcoin node, cutting out Foundation as the middleman.
Reproducibility
With the provider’s help we updated the test script.
This device runs the “color” version of the firmware so we provide these parameters to it:
- version: 2.3.2
- model: color
- build fingerprint: 88e8af6f50a78a6bce1fb892f61ebd28ac3eca3dec61ec5b5010734db9d7da88
- release fingerprint: efa8c807a4b8d3b089c41cbfa22335a4fe349b7ccd9f0df702903a5a644b351e
The fingerprints can be found on the release page.
$ ./scripts/test/hardware/passport.sh 2.3.2 color 88e8af6f50a78a6bce1fb892f61ebd28ac3eca3dec61ec5b5010734db9d7da88 efa8c807a4b8d3b089c41cbfa22335a4fe349b7ccd9f0df702903a5a644b351e
...
LINK build-Passport/firmware.elf
Memory region Used Size Region Size %age Used
FLASH: 1554808 B 1662 KB 91.36%
DTCM: 118664 B 128 KB 90.53%
RAM: 217392 B 512 KB 41.46%
RAM_D2: 292080 B 288 KB 99.04%
SRAM4: 51092 B 64 KB 77.96%
text data bss dec hex filename
1534984 19816 659404 2214204 21c93c build-Passport/firmware.elf
INFO: this build requires mboot to be installed first
GEN build-Passport/firmware-COLOR.bin
GEN build-Passport/firmware.dfu
GEN build-Passport/firmware.hex
make: Leaving directory '/workspace/ports/stm32'
Built v2.3.2 binary sha256 hash:
88e8af6f50a78a6bce1fb892f61ebd28ac3eca3dec61ec5b5010734db9d7da88 ports/stm32/build-Passport/firmware-COLOR.bin
Expected v2.3.2 build hash:
88e8af6f50a78a6bce1fb892f61ebd28ac3eca3dec61ec5b5010734db9d7da88
ports/stm32/build-Passport/firmware-COLOR.bin: OK
v2.3.2 release binary sha256 hash:
efa8c807a4b8d3b089c41cbfa22335a4fe349b7ccd9f0df702903a5a644b351e ../v2.3.2-passport.bin
Expected v2.3.2 release binary hash:
efa8c807a4b8d3b089c41cbfa22335a4fe349b7ccd9f0df702903a5a644b351e
../v2.3.2-passport.bin: OK
Comparing v2.3.2 stripped release binary hash:
Expected v2.3.2 build hash:
88e8af6f50a78a6bce1fb892f61ebd28ac3eca3dec61ec5b5010734db9d7da88
no-header-v2.3.2-passport.bin: OK
- The built binary’s sha256 hash matches the expected build hash. -> 88e8af6f50a78a6bce1fb892f61ebd28ac3eca3dec61ec5b5010734db9d7da88
- The sha256 hash of the release binary, matches the expected hash. -> efa8c807a4b8d3b089c41cbfa22335a4fe349b7ccd9f0df702903a5a644b351e
- Both the stripped release binary and the built binary have matching hashes. -> 88e8af6f50a78a6bce1fb892f61ebd28ac3eca3dec61ec5b5010734db9d7da88
The verification process successfully proves that the firmware for v2.3.2 is reproducible.
Upon updating your device, you should be shown
efa8c807a4b8d3b089c41cbfa22335a4fe349b7ccd9f0df702903a5a644b351e
to be sure you got the file that we tested.
Tests performed by Matthew Lamb, Leo Wandersleb, @sethforprivacy, Daniel Andrei R. Garcia
Previous application build tests
31st May 2024 | v2.3.1 | |
20th June 2023 | v2.1.2 |
Disclaimer
Our 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
In addition to reading our analysis, it is important to do your own checks. Before transferring any bitcoin to your wallet, look up reviews for the wallet you want to use. They should be easy to find. If they aren't, that itself is a reason to be extra careful.