Divi Wallet: Crypto & StakingLatest release: 1.15 ( 27th May 2022 ) 🔍 Last analysed 4th November 2021 . No source for current release found
Help spread awareness for build reproducibility
Please help us spread the word discussing transparency with Divi Wallet: Crypto & Staking 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)
Rewards, nodes, staking payments, lottery and others are the main features of this wallet
We never have access to your private keys or backup phrases, meaning you are fully in control of your digital assets. Our crypto wallet integrates the latest biometric security and 2FA authentication
We downloaded the app and two options were initially available: Create a new Wallet and ‘I already have a Wallet’.
We are then asked to assign a 4-digit pin code. Afterwards, we are asked to verify our phone number, this can be skipped. Email verification can also be skipped. We also skipped profile creation.
Afterwards, it would seem that profile creation was mandatory after all. Skipping brings us to profile details. We filled it up. After filling up some more details, we are then presented with the 12-word backup phrase. We then confirmed it.
This is evidently a self-custodial wallet.
While there is a repository for the Desktop App, we cannot find source for the Google Play app. We have created an issue in GitHub. and the provider confirmed the app is closed source and therefore not verifiable.
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/io.divipay.divi&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/io.divipay.divi&theme=auto&style=long" style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;"> </iframe>