The Problems With Bitcoin Magazine’s Arculus Partnership

This is a viewpoint editorial by Shinobi, a self-taught educator in the Bitcoin space and tech-oriented Bitcoin podcast host.On December 15, 2021, Bitcoin Magazine announced that every guest of the Bitcoin 2022 conference would get a free hardware wallet from Arculus. Arculus promotes itself as the “Arculus Secure Crypto Cold Storage Wallet,” and engages in a fair bit of hand waving in comparing itself to existing hardware key management devices in the space, touting “three-factor authentication,” flexibility from dependence on “cables or Bluetooth” and calling itself the “much safer method to keep your crypto.” This sets off every red flag that is possible to set off for me in terms of insecure gadgets if Im being sincere. Its website offers no appropriate description of architecture, makes unclear contrasts to other devices that are not accurate and there is no real open-source code for the product to be confirmed anywhere (in an ask for comments for this short article, Arculus reacted that it is working to make the software app used in this gadget open source). As a Bitcoin Magazine contributor I have a terrific numerous problems with this whole circumstance, from the nature of the partnership, to the device itself and how it has been managed in regards to the public perception after the announcement. To his credit, David Bailey (the BTC Inc CEO, who operates Bitcoin Magazine and Bitcoin 2022) has been very up front about acknowledging his duty for partnering with the supplier before carrying out proper “diligence.””Bitcoin Magazine makes extensive efforts to validate that its partners and sponsors are good faith actors who are real in their intent to develop in the Bitcoin community,” a Bitcoin Magazine representative said in reaction to concerns submitted for this article.” Bitcoin Magazine supplied product feedback related to the security and design elements of the hardware wallet experience– privacy concerns were thought about to the extent that theyre considered in any partnership decision Bitcoin Magazine makes.”This said, I believe there are still huge concerns with the whole situation.Dont Trust, VerifyOne of the core renters of this space is “do not trust, validate,” but the reality is that the more time goes on and the more this space grows, the harder following that renter ends up being. There are many Bitcoin tools, products and services out there that users need to assess and verify the details for, so inevitably a lot of this verification is being outsourced to reputable figures and publications in the area. As much as I dislike to say it, to some degree the larger this ecosystem grows, the more inescapable that reality will end up being. Everybody can, in concept, validate whatever themselves, however the time and effort needed to do so is not useful for literally everyone. Individuals have lives, obligations and spaces in understanding that would need to be filled in to do so. Many people will undoubtedly have to outsource this to some degree. This is what troubles me a lot about this plan in between Arculus and Bitcoin Magazine. I do not believe enough was done to verify claims made by Arculus concerning its security, and how those claims were integrated into its marketing, before arriving at a deal where every participant of Bitcoin 2022 would be offered the opportunity to take home an Arculus card free of charge. In an ecosystem developed on verifying things yourself, where doing that is becoming more and more illogical, people and brand names with big reaches and a great deal of trust placed in them have a major duty to really perform due diligence before suggesting individuals in this area usage things, let alone put their stamps of approval on them by providing them away for complimentary at an occasion. Unclear ArchitectureThe hardware architecture of the Arculus device is very vaguely described in its white paper. It develops using a “safe and secure element,” however just describes the security score of the device (EAL6+), not the actual design of chip. This is not proven with the info on the website, however it seems to be of a similar style as Ledger hardware wallets, where 100% of the crucial handling, signing and other operations are done on the protected component (in reaction to concerns for this article, Arculus validated that this is the case). This would imply that the whole security model is developed around a closed-source chip. Now, clearly lots of people in this environment take issue just with the reality that something is closed source, however the truth is that using such an item is a choice for specific users to make for themselves. The popularity of products such as Ledger, completely reliant on a closed-source, safe aspect and nothing else, make it clear that a minimum of some Bitcoin users find that to be an acceptable tradeoff to make. Nevertheless, that is not the only problematic element of the architecture of the Arculus, or rather, with the overall absence of clearness on its architecture.There are many security checks that are done by hardware-signing gadgets prior to they really carry out the finalizing operation. These are automatic security checks managed by the hardware gadget to make sure that malicious transactions are not being signed that might result in the user losing money. Absolutely nothing on the Arculus website or any advertising material Ive seen makes any mention of important checks that a device must participate in before really signing a transaction, such as: Verifying that the modification address used is in fact generated from the users mnemonic seedVerifying that any change address that is multisignature is made up of the appropriate keys (and not a malicious address with an assaulters secrets able to spend coins, or a non-standard derivation path you will not be able to recover on your own)If the gadget is capable of saving other XPUBs used in a multisignature wallet to be able to perform the above checkSafety checks to ensure that the appropriate key is being used to sign a deal (for example, there have actually been attacks that could fool a wallet into signing a deal it believes is for bitcoin money with bitcoin keys) In an ask for comment for this short article, Arculus was asked what kind of security checks the gadget does before signing a deal. Specifically, I asked whether change addresses are confirming to guarantee they are legitimate and part of the users wallet. This was the Arculus reaction: “First off, the card has actually to have actually been previously linked with the phone that is generating the deal. Change addresses, like all of the addresses, are created based on the personal secrets on the card itself. Signing any deal needs three elements of authentication: Something you understand: your 6 digit card PINSomething you are: your biometricsSomething you have: your physical Arculus Key Card”The card will not sign a transaction without all 3 authentication elements. Its worth keeping in mind that the six-digit card pin is kept on the card itself and the counter for failed PIN attempts is likewise saved on the card itself. After 3 stopped working PIN efforts, the card is reset and the user must restore through their healing expression.”Based on this action, I have to conclude that none of the previously-listed kinds of security and address checks are carried out on the device at all. This is shocking, considered that such security checks are pretty basic throughout most hardware wallets in the ecosystem. It is especially stunning provided the advertising claims of this Arculus gadget being the “safer method” tp shop crypto.Security TheaterThe absence of openness on architecture is a significant warning to me, however my greatest issues are elements of the architecture that are really discussed effectively on the website. In reality these 2 style options billed as an enormous improvement in security versus other rivals are nothing more than security theater, and are effectively negated if the smart device being utilized to communicate with the gadget is compromised by malware. The very first problematic design decision remains in the process of producing the real mnemonic phrase and personal keys on the gadget. Based upon the white paper, this process does not appear to enable user-provided entropy, and although a great deal of other popular wallets in the space do not either, this is a lacking feature that makes Arculus blanket assessments of its item suggesting it is more safe than others, as described above, extremely troublesome. Additionally, per the white paper, the mnemonic seed is in fact shown on the smartphone for the back-up process. It is unclear whether the seed is generated by the Arculus card itself, or on the users smart device, however the truth is that it really does not matter. Displaying the mnemonic seed on the mobile phone app means that, despite where it is produced, it exists on the mobile phone at the time of generation during the initialization procedure. This totally weakens isolating secrets on a hardware device for security functions. Furthermore, according to the white paper, it really triggers the user to re-enter the entire seed expression into the app to verify it. This suggests that the keyboard application of your phone is likewise accessing to the seed phrase during the key generation. If the phone is jeopardized during the initialization procedure, your secrets are jeopardized. The second problematic element of the design remains in the user entering their authentication pin on their smartphone itself. This is billed as an extra layer of security: “All transactions need you to enter your PIN and tap your card to validate,” checks out the white paper. “The app verifies that the cards GGUID (Globally special identifier) and Account public keys match its stored information.”But the truth is that being entered upon the smart device indicates that if your phone is jeopardized, the pin can be gotten by the star that jeopardized your phone, offering them access to the 2nd authentication system. Hardware wallets have traditionally had the pin entered upon the gadget itself, or used a plan where a rushed number pad is shown on the gadget screen so that when you get in the pin on a computer system, it is not exposing what the pin is to that computer.SourceSo, provided the issues in architecture and communication of security designs to the users, why in the world are hand-waving contrasts like the above published on its site? The above chart claims exceptional security to other “cold storages.” However that is a demonstrably false claim, as articulated above. Numerous other hardware wallets, regardless of the specifics of their hardware security architecture, are definitely more safe and secure than the Arculus simply by the virtue of only showing your mnemonic seed on the device itself, and not sending it to and showing it on a general computing device like your mobile phone. Furthermore, the trend of battery-powered hardware wallets is very brand-new, and the majority of the devices that have actually been sold in this space for several years draw power when plugged in through a cable television, having no internal battery. What is the function of making a “no charge required” comparison? The claim around it is unreliable in recommending that other cold storage options need a “charge,” and it serves no beneficial function except to develop an useless classification to contribute to the understanding of this being a remarkable product.SourceThe above image is another example of completely unfounded claims that total up to nothing more than incoherent mumbo jumbo in the effort to paint Arculus positively through its marketing. Take a look at the “Leading-Edge Privacy” area of the above graphic from the Arculus site. What does “ultra-protection for your delicate personal financial data” even suggest? The whole wallet is developed around a mobile phone app. The wallet app has to fetch balance information about your bitcoin from someplace– which, according to Arculuss action to my questions, is a cloud-based environment depending on third-party partners for blockchain data. This makes the claim of offering leading-edge privacy completely false. You are dripping all of your asset balance information to Arculus, along with potentially its third-party partners if it makes specific balance queries to those partners rather of downloading all of the data itself to process users balance queries.As a last example of the reckless, incorrect and misleading marketing of this product, Arculus published this with a link to Econoalchemists extensive write on verifiably-generating keys from your own entropy-using dice and splitting your mnemonic expression into several pieces using Coldcards XOR protocol.SourceThis is most likely among the most safe and secure ways to generate personal keys and set up a plausibly deniable back up for them without ever exposing them to a networked computer system. Arculus claims that its gadget, which exposes your mnemonic seed to your mobile phone throughout the initialization process, is more protected than the above technique of generating secrets from manual dice rolls on an air-gapped device that Econoalchemist documented in his compose up. That is factually not true, and a entirely unethical and irresponsible claim to make. The procedure that Arculus uses to produce secrets and supply the mnemonic phrase to the user to back them up is objectively less safe than the procedure recorded by Econoalchemist. One exposes the users mnemonic to their smart device, the other does not. A Bitcoin CornerstoneThe phrase “do not trust, validate” is a cornerstone of this community, but as talked about above, it is not practical for many, if not most, in this space to take that advice all the way to the root of everything they do relating to Bitcoin. This, in my opinion, positions a serious ethical obligation on teachers, material creators and public figures in this area to in fact do their research when entering the general public light and making suggestions concerning practices and items to the wider population of Bitcoiners. It is hard enough as it is to acquire a mutual understanding of Bitcoin and the tools available to interact with it and to make a notified decision about the safest tools to use to accomplish your goals. Content creators not taking the obligation to inform people accurately makes it even harder. I believe that, to have any sort of favorable impact or existence in this ecosystem, Arculus requires to fundamentally change its interaction and marketing method and rethink some of the architecture of its item. Hardware solutions for cold storage must not at any point be exposing the mnemonic seed to a smart device or computer– this weakens the entire function of handling personal keys with a hardware device in the first place. Furthermore, provided such a glaring hole in the whole security design, they should not be participating in marketing with such cavalier and unreliable declarations of the supremacy of their security compared to other gadgets on the market today. Till these 2 things are attended to in a material and major way, I do not personally believe that Bitcoin Magazine ought to be connecting with such a company. I believe it is both reckless and dishonest to associate with a business taking part in such deceptive marketing and poor security practices offered Bitcoin Magazines role in this ecosystem.This is a visitor post by Shinobi. Viewpoints expressed are completely their own and do not necessarily show those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.

Its website supplies no proper description of architecture, makes vague contrasts to other gadgets that are not precise and there is no actual open-source code for the item to be confirmed anywhere (in a request for comments for this post, Arculus reacted that it is working to make the software app utilized in this device open source). Nothing on the Arculus website or any marketing product Ive seen makes any mention of essential checks that a gadget need to engage in prior to really signing a transaction, such as: Verifying that the modification address utilized is actually produced from the users mnemonic seedVerifying that any change address that is multisignature is composed of the proper secrets (and not a malicious address with an enemies secrets able to invest coins, or a non-standard derivation path you wont be able to recover on your own)If the gadget is capable of keeping other XPUBs utilized in a multisignature wallet to be able to carry out the above checkSafety checks to make sure that the proper secret is being used to sign a deal (for instance, there have been attacks that could deceive a wallet into signing a deal it believes is for bitcoin money with bitcoin secrets) In a request for comment for this short article, Arculus was asked what type of security checks the gadget does prior to signing a transaction. Hardware wallets have typically had the pin entered on the gadget itself, or used a scheme where a rushed number pad is shown on the gadget screen so that when you enter the pin on a computer system, it is not exposing what the pin is to that computer.SourceSo, given the issues in architecture and interaction of security models to the users, why on Earth are hand-waving comparisons like the above published on its site? Many other hardware wallets, regardless of the specifics of their hardware security architecture, are infinitely more protected than the Arculus simply by the virtue of just showing your mnemonic seed on the device itself, and not sending it to and showing it on a general computing gadget like your smart device. Arculus claims that its device, which exposes your mnemonic seed to your smartphone throughout the initialization process, is more protected than the above approach of producing keys from manual dice rolls on an air-gapped device that Econoalchemist recorded in his write up.