Wallet Logo

Atomex - Crypto Wallet & Atomic swap DEX

Latest release: 1.12.1 ( 9th November 2021 ) 🔍 Last analysed 25th February 2022 . Not reproducible from source provided Not functioning anymore
3.9 ★★★★★
64 ratings
10 thousand
6th December 2020

Jump to verdict 

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please help us spread the word, asking Atomex - Crypto Wallet & Atomic swap DEX to support reproducible builds  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.

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.

The Analysis 

Update 2022-02-12: This app is not on the Store anymore.

Atomex — is a non-custodial crypto wallet

and it also supports Bitcoin and …

Atomex is an open-source project by the Baking Bad team, which is known in the Tezos community as one of the most active ecosystem contributors.

and indeed their linked GitHub account has a repository that looks promising: atomex-me/atomex.mobile.

Unfortunately at this point I have to give up as this is the first project we review that was built in Visual Studio using C#. As there are no build instructions I can only hope for help from the provider and conclude for now that the app is not verifiable.

(lw)

Verdict Explained

We could not verify that the provided code matches the binary!

As part of our Methodology, we ask:

Unreproducible!

Is the published binary matching the published source code?

If the answer is "no", we mark it as "Not reproducible from source provided".

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

  1. obtain the binary from the provider
  2. compile the published source code using the published build instructions into a binary
  3. compare the two binaries
  4. 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.

But we also ask:

Defunct!

Is the product still supported by the still existing provider?

If the answer is "no", we mark it as "Not functioning anymore".

Discontinued products or worse, products of providers that are not active anymore, are problematic, especially if they were not formerly reproducible and well audited to be self-custodial following open standards. If the provider hasn’t answered inquiries for a year but their server is still running or similar circumstances might get this verdict, too.