MetaMask Fake Android Wallet
Notice: This page is a freshly imported case study from the original repository. The original content was in a different format, and may not have relevant information for all sections. Please help restructure the content by moving information from the 'About' and 'General Prevention' sections to other sections, and add any missing information or sources you can find. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.
Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!
A fake MetaMask wallet was discovered on the Google Play store. The wallet would request the user's private seed phrase during setup, which would then by sent to the attacker. It is unknown what funds were taken from unsuspecting users. There is no report of any funds being recovered.
This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
About MetaMask
MetaMask is a "crypto wallet & gateway to blockchain apps. Start exploring blockchain applications in seconds. Trusted by over 21 million users worldwide." "Available as a browser extension and as a mobile app, MetaMask equips you with a key vault, secure login, token wallet, and token exchange—everything you need to manage your digital assets."
"Back in November 2018, malware researcher Lukas Stefanko found four fake crypto wallets on the Google Play Store that were posing as official pieces of software for neo, tether and metamask."
"[T]hese fake wallets were created using Drag-n-Drop app builder service without any coding knowledge required." "Stefanko noted that the apps were developed using the Drag-n-Drop app builder service, which does not require specific coding knowledge from the user. This means that nearly anyone is able to “develop” a simple malicious app to steal sensitive personal data, “once the Bitcoin (BTC) price rises,” according to Stefanko."
"Android PlayStore (from user POV) only allows to order reviews "highest first" but not "lowest first", and it's not possible to filter e.g. "only 1 star reviews"."
"In short, a scam app that actively manipulates reviews makes it [difficult] for the user to learn it's a scam."
"They were purportedly designed to phish users’ mobile banking credentials and credit card information." "The first one is phishing category where malicious app after launch requests from the user his private key and wallet password. That is the case for fake MetaMask app."
"The analyst states in the post that he reported the fake apps to the Google security team, after which the wallets were subsequently removed."
"David got scammed because, he didn't read app comments."
"Always go through comments before installing apps - it can save you some trouble."
This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.
The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.
Include:
- Known history of when and how the service was started.
- What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
- What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
- Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
- Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
- How were people recruited to participate?
- Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.
Don't Include:
- Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
- Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.
There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.
The Reality
This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:
- When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
- Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
- How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
- Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.
What Happened
The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| October 28th, 2018 | Main Event | Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here. |
Technical Details
This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?
Total Amount Lost
The total amount lost is unknown.
How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?
Immediate Reactions
How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?
Ultimate Outcome
What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?
Total Amount Recovered
There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.
What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?
Ongoing Developments
What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?
General Prevention Policies
Always download wallets from the official source if possible. Typically, their primary website will direct you to the correct application. Check for recent negative reviews that report an application being a scam in the recent reviews history. Check to ensure an application has been available for an expected amount of time, and has a reasonable number of downloads. Once a wallet is set up, for any new wallet, always make a test transaction with a small amount of funds and a test withdrawal before using the wallet. Keep the majority of funds stored offline and only use mobile or PC-based wallets for funds you are actively using.
Individual Prevention Policies
No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.
Platform Prevention Policies
Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.
Regulatory Prevention Policies
No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.
References
- ↑ Fake Crypto Wallet App Imitating Trezor Found on Google Play Store (Mar 2, 2022)
- ↑ Four Fake Cryptocurrency Wallets Found on Google Play Store (Mar 6, 2022)
- ↑ Fake cryptocurrency wallets found on Play Store - Lukas Stefanko (Mar 6, 2022)
- ↑ Android malware analysis - How fake Android cryptocurrency wallets work (NEO, Tether) | Crypto Scams - YouTube (Mar 6, 2022)
- ↑ @LukasStefanko Twitter (Mar 6, 2022)
- ↑ Wayback Machine (Mar 6, 2022)
- ↑ Fake cryptocurrency wallets found on Play Store - Lukas Stefanko (Mar 6, 2022)
- ↑ https://metamask.io/ (Mar 6, 2022)
- ↑ What is MetaMask? - YouTube (Mar 6, 2022)