Wallet Logo

Haven - Private Shopping

Latest release: 1.3.7 ( 27th September 2020 ) 🔍 Last analysed 23rd January 2021 . Not reproducible from source provided Not functioning anymore
3.7 ★★★★★
394 ratings
100 thousand

Jump to verdict 

Older reviews (show 0 of 1 reproducible)

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please help us spread the word, asking Haven - Private Shopping 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: @StevieZollo sent a tweet:

@WalletScrutiny @LeoWandersleb it looks like you reviewed @HavenPrivacy the day before it went open source. You can find its source code here: https://github.com/OpenBazaar/haven

so we can check its source code after all. Let’s see how that goes:

Just in case, we reviewed their website again if this is the official repo but there is no link to it, so that doesn’t leave us with much hope. Also: Unless the provider endorses this repository, you should not assume it is anything official or trustworthy! Anyway …

/tmp$ git clone https://github.com/OpenBazaar/haven
Cloning into 'haven'...
remote: Enumerating objects: 12, done.
remote: Counting objects: 100% (12/12), done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (11/11), done.
remote: Total 766 (delta 2), reused 5 (delta 0), pack-reused 754
Receiving objects: 100% (766/766), 15.25 MiB | 9.58 MiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (46/46), done.
/tmp$ cd haven/
/tmp/haven(master)$ git tag
/tmp/haven(master)$ git branch 
* master
/tmp/haven(master)$ git log --oneline
ef354df (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Merge pull request #1 from OpenBazaar/add-license-1
de4cced (origin/add-license-1) Create LICENSE
2a5fe76 Update readme
f486f33 feat: havenBuildConfigFiles setup
a0a8bc8 Initial commit

So there is essentially only one revision as far as the Android app goes. Changes to license or readme should not affect the app on Android itself. The missing tag will be a problem later on though.

root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# apt install nodejs npm -y
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# npm install -g npm yarn
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# yarn
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# apt install curl
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# yarn
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt# find . | grep '\.env'

At this point, the build instructions read

Copy .env file to the root directory

but according to find . | grep '\.env' there is no .env file anywhere. The instruction:

The env file should look like this:

BRANCH_KEY=
COUNTLY_ROOT_URL=
COUNTLY_APP_KEY=
STREAM_API_KEY=
STREAM_APP_ID=
HMAC_SECRET=

looks like the provider is not sharing all details necessary to build this app but let’s see what happens …

It doesn’t get better. Next we are supposed to

Copy those files into havenBuildConfigFiles folder:

AppCenter-Config.plist
GoogleService-Info.plist
appcenter-config.json
google-services.json

and again those are not files provided by the company.

So to little surprise, compiling doesn’t go all too well:

root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt/android# cd android/
root@4be0f50e58d3:/mnt/android# ./gradlew clean assembleRelease
...
FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':app:processReleaseGoogleServices'.
> File google-services.json is missing. The Google Services Plugin cannot function without it. 
   Searched Location: 
  /mnt/android/app/src/nullnull/release/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/src/release/nullnull/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/src/nullnull/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/src/release/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/src/nullnullRelease/google-services.json
  /mnt/android/app/google-services.json

* Try:
Run with --stacktrace option to get the stack trace. Run with --info or --debug option to get more log output. Run with --scan to get full insights.

* Get more help at https://help.gradle.org

Deprecated Gradle features were used in this build, making it incompatible with Gradle 7.0.
Use '--warning-mode all' to show the individual deprecation warnings.
See https://docs.gradle.org/6.5/userguide/command_line_interface.html#sec:command_line_warnings

BUILD FAILED in 4m 14s
330 actionable tasks: 299 executed, 31 up-to-date

At this point we give up and give the verdict not verifiable.

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.