As part of our Methodology, we ask:
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.But we also ask:
Verdicts apply to very specific releases of products and never to the product as a whole. A new release of a product can change the product completely and thus also the verdict. This product remains listed according to its latest verdict but readers are advised to do their own research as this product might have changed for the better or worse.
This meta verdict is applied in cases of reviews that we identify as requiring an update.
This meta verdict applies to all products with verdict “reproducible” as soon as a new version is released until we test that new version, too. It also applies in cases where issues we opened are marked as resolved by the provider.
If we had more resources, we would update reviews more timely instead of assigning this meta verdict ;)
Show Older Reviews
The Analysis ¶
This does not represent a full code review.
With this test script (?) we get:
===== Begin Results =====
appId: io.muun.apollo
signer: 026ae0ac859cc32adf2d4e7aa909daf902f40db0b4fe6138358026fd62836ad1
apkVersionName: 49.3
apkVersionCode: 903
verdict:
appHash: 70fcd9491963e6fe27f9efd41d3c90abf63539d0f9528de8abbad964675de723
commit: e65b56b7128094ef7c188d00828747ee01b3fad6
Diff:
Files /tmp/fromPlay_io.muun.apollo_903/classes2.dex and /tmp/fromBuild_io.muun.apollo_903/classes2.dex differ
Files /tmp/fromPlay_io.muun.apollo_903/classes.dex and /tmp/fromBuild_io.muun.apollo_903/classes.dex differ
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_io.muun.apollo_903/META-INF: APOLLORE.RSA
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_io.muun.apollo_903/META-INF: APOLLORE.SF
Only in /tmp/fromPlay_io.muun.apollo_903/META-INF: MANIFEST.MF
Files /tmp/fromPlay_io.muun.apollo_903/resources.arsc and /tmp/fromBuild_io.muun.apollo_903/resources.arsc differ
Revision, tag (and its signature):
object e65b56b7128094ef7c188d00828747ee01b3fad6
type commit
tag v49.3
tagger acrespo <alvaro.andres.crespo@gmail.com> 1651007577 -0300
v49.3
===== End Results =====
Sadly that is not verifiable.
(lw)
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.