KeyWallet Touch - BitcoinLatest release: 1.1.31 ( 10th January 2022 ) 🔍 Last analysed 26th October 2021 . No source for current release found
Help spread awareness for build reproducibility
Please help us spread the word discussing transparency with KeyWallet Touch - Bitcoin 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)
Updated Review 2022-01-04:
The new URL linked to from the Google Play app page is keypair.co.kr. (Twitter Screenshot)
The description makes rather vague claims:
- Fully complied with HD(Hierarchical Deterministic) wallet
which is a standard that makes most sense for self-custodial wallets.
This application manages crypto wallets for Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, ERC20 tokens and etc.
Now this might be a language barrier issue but we would hope it is a wallet and not an application to manage wallets aka “not a wallet”?
Their website appears to be no more and we get forwarded to some Korean site that according to Google translate reads:
This is to inform you that the “service period has expired” for this site .
There is another website though: afinkeywallet.io
So in the best of cases this is a functioning closed source self-custodial Bitcoin wallet and thus 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/kr.co.keypair.keywalletTouchiOS&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/kr.co.keypair.keywalletTouchiOS&theme=auto&style=long" style="max-width:100%;width:342px;border:0;border-radius:10px;min-height:290px;"> </iframe>