Wallet Logo

Klever

🔍 Last analysed 18th February 2022 . Bad Interface
17th December 2021

Jump to verdict 

Help spread awareness for build reproducibility

Please help us spread the word discussing build reproducibility with Klever  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 

Klever is a company with many development goals in mind. It’s projects include smart phone wallets, crypto debit cards, its own blockchain, a cryptocurrency exchange and the Klever Hardware wallet which concluded its Pre-Sale in the 4th quarter of 2021. They claim that the Pre-Sale sold out.

Advertised Specifications

We were not able to find a video review of the actual device, so we’ll go by the advertised technical specifications with what information is publicly available.

We derived information from this article written by Marcelo Soussa, Klever’s Head Engineer for their Hard Wallet Squad.

  • There are two types of connections for the device:
    • Bluetooth
    • USB with type-C connector
  • They claim that the private keys are stored offline
  • Certified security CC-EAL5+

The wallet also features two buttons to confirm and abort transactions and two communication interfaces: USB (through a type-C connector) and Bluetooth. Visual user interface is accomplished through a RGB LED and the Klever Wallet app in order to provide a simple and efficient device.

The basic operation of the device is through the Klever Wallet app. As soon as the device is connected via USB or Bluetooth, coin transactions are held by the Klever Hardware Wallet instead of software.

These are the companion apps.

For Android:

For iOS:

There was no mention of a display screen on the Klever device.

Verdict

Without a video review of the physical device, we can only base our analysis on the information that is publicly available. They claim in this article that:

With this gadget, everyone can authenticate and confirm transactions without having to resort to their private key or any other sensitive code, as the process is solely managed by the device. The keys, passwords, pin numbers and mnemonics, typical security strategies of the digital world, may be only required during the device initial setup.

The device has no screen wherein the user can visually confirm transactions on the device itself. This also means that it is entirely reliant on the connected mobile phone app.

They also mentioned that they were going to release the source code publicly, but we checked their GitHub repository and we could not find the repository for the hardware wallet.

(dg)

Verdict Explained

The design of the device does not allow to verify what is being signed!

As part of our Methodology, we ask:

Bad Interface!

Can the user verify and approve transactions on the device?

If the answer is "no", we mark it as "Bad Interface".

These are devices that might generate secure private key material, outside the reach of the provider but that do not have the means to let the user verify transactions on the device itself. This verdict includes screen-less smart cards or USB-dongles.

The wallet lacks either an output device such as a screen, an input device such as touch or physical buttons or both. In consequence, crucial elements of approving transactions is being delegated to other hardware such as a general purpose PC or phone which defeats the purpose of a hardware wallet.

Another consquence of a missing screen is that the user is faced with the dilemma of either not making a backup or having to pass the backup through an insecure device for display or storage.

The software of the device might be perfect but this device cannot be recommended due to this fundamental flaw.

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.