ONTO-Cross-chain Crypto WalletLatest release: 4.3.0 ( 14th June 2022 ) 🔍 Last analysed 15th September 2021 . No source for current release found
Help spread awareness for build reproducibility
Please help us spread the word discussing transparency with ONTO-Cross-chain Crypto Wallet via their Twitter!
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.
The Analysis ¶
(Analysis from Android review)
The Google Play description:
ONTO is the first truly decentralized, cross-chain wallet, allowing users to securely manage their identities, data, and digital assets.
Given that it refers to itself as a decentralized wallet, this likely means that it is a self-custodial wallet. As our policy is “don’t trust, verify” we will still try to verify this.
In the official website’s help center, we find a page on how to export ONT ID Wallet.
Users may choose to export their 12-word mnemonic phrase. It is also possible to import and export single-chain wallets provided the users have access to the mnemonic phrases.
We emailed them to verify the location for the source code of their wallet, and they have pointed to the github page at the bottom of their site.
We took a look at ONTO’s github page for the source code corresponding to their Google Play appID, but have found no results. The link points to the “ONTO-Data-Wallet”. Curiously, at the time of this writing, the page only contained a readme file.
In the absence of a scrutinizable source code, we would tentatively have to label this as having no source code.
Without public source of the reviewed release available, this product cannot be verified!
As part of our Methodology, we ask:Is the source code publicly available? If not, we tag it No Source!
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.
Share onTwitter Facebook LinkedIn
Or embed a widget in your website
<iframe src="https://walletscrutiny.com/widget/#appId=iphone/com.ontology.foundation.onto&theme=auto&style=short" name="_ts" style="min-width:180px;border:0;border-radius:10px;max-width:280px;min-height:30px;"> </iframe>
<iframe src="https://walletscrutiny.com/widget/#appId=iphone/com.ontology.foundation.onto&theme=auto&style=long" style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;"> </iframe>