<p>You don't <em>entirely</em> have to trust the owner of the site. The site is client side Javascript based, which means you can probably save a copy of the code, then review it, and run it offline.</p>

<p>If you continue to use the website though, you're trusting the owner of the site to:</p>

<ol>
<li>Not change the code in any way that compromises the security of the private key</li>
<li>Maintain adequate security so that no hacker can change the code in any way that compromises the security of the private key</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-13T03:35:14.980Z
most of us, incl me, don't code so we depend on others.  as a matter of policy i don't trust the site owner.
user1719
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-13T03:40:55.050Z
I agree that asking people to review the code is about as useful as asking people to read all the T&C's on the websites they sign up to, and the EULA's on their software. If you can't read code though you're going to have to trust someone somewhere, such as the coders of the Bitcoin client.
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-13T03:41:39.543Z
(I read something recently that estimated we'd spend 32 days per year reading T&C's/EULA's if we read them all)
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-13T07:20:27.817Z
The html is also checked into Github. https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org
Stephen Gornick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-14T02:18:22.803Z
unfortunately, the essence of Bitcoin is that you shouldn't have to trust the site owner.  it seems pretty legit since no one has ever reported a theft from one his addresses.  but b/c it's done in the browser, can a third party get a hold of the private key you generate?
user1719
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-14T03:18:00.030Z
As I understand it, sites using https keep the transferred data reasonably secure. Instawallet seems to get away with using the URL as a kind-of private key. You'd probably want to be careful about which browser add-ons you install though, as they can probably access the page content.
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-21T08:06:37.627Z
Isnt it possible to download the page and run it offline?
sandos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-21T08:34:54.747Z
I haven't tried, but my guess is that yes, it would run offline. I had tried to state that in my answer as "you can probably save a copy of the code, then review it, and use it", but perhaps it needs rewording... thanks
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-13T01:53:42.993Z
2012-08-21T08:35:53.870Z
2012-08-21T08:35:53.870Z
Highly Irregular
<p>A site generating your PRIVATE key for you and matching bitcoin addresses? A disaster waiting to happen. There is almost no way to be sure the information is not stored and then, in a few years, used for withdrawal (theft).</p>

<p>Using the code offline is a better idea, but DO check the code first.</p>

<p>Just my 2 Satoshis...</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-10T23:05:51.643Z
There is a way to make sure the information isn't stored - which is to do all the processing client-side. The bitaddress generator does do the processing client side, but I'm not convinced  1) that there's enough entropy or 2) there's not a side-channel attack.
Nick ODell
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-10T21:25:43.950Z
2013-03-10T21:25:43.950Z
Heimdal
<p>Unless you read and verify all the site's code (big task and impossible to verify for certain anyway, may be errors in your verification) OR provide your own private keys, there's no way to know the site isn't simply providing private keys from a pool (or mathematical subset) known to the site owner (or whoever may have hacked the site's code). THAT is the major risk. Client-side/server-side makes little difference. I'd even go so far as to say that whole concept (client-side) is <em>false reassurance</em>. The question still comes down to, <em>do you trust the code you are running to provide genuinely random private keys</em>. There's the whole rub.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-11-09T00:25:26.167Z
2014-11-09T00:32:21.620Z
2014-11-09T00:32:21.620Z
Bradley Thomas
<p>AFAIK, the generation of the address pairs occurs on your computer but the concept still makes me nervous as it's occurring in the browser and I have to trust the owner of the site, I think.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-13T01:54:38.593Z
Good question, and welcome to bitcoin.stackexchange!
Highly Irregular
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-08-14T03:21:11.040Z
Related answer: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/2876/516
Highly Irregular
<security>
Should I trust bitaddress.org?
user1719
# Should I trust bitaddress.org?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-08-13)

AFAIK, the generation of the address pairs occurs on your computer but the concept still makes me nervous as it's occurring in the browser and I have to trust the owner of the site, I think.

**Tags:** security

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Good question, and welcome to bitcoin.stackexchange!  
> **username_1**: Related answer: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/2876/516  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2012-08-13. Score: 9

You don't *entirely* have to trust the owner of the site. The site is client side Javascript based, which means you can probably save a copy of the code, then review it, and run it offline.

If you continue to use the website though, you're trusting the owner of the site to:

1. Not change the code in any way that compromises the security of the private key
2. Maintain adequate security so that no hacker can change the code in any way that compromises the security of the private key

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: most of us, incl me, don't code so we depend on others.  as a matter of policy i don't trust the site owner.  
> **username_1**: I agree that asking people to review the code is about as useful as asking people to read all the T&C's on the websites they sign up to, and the EULA's on their software. If you can't read code though you're going to have to trust someone somewhere, such as the coders of the Bitcoin client.  
> **username_1**: (I read something recently that estimated we'd spend 32 days per year reading T&C's/EULA's if we read them all)  
> **username_2**: The html is also checked into Github. https://github.com/pointbiz/bitaddress.org  
> **username_0**: unfortunately, the essence of Bitcoin is that you shouldn't have to trust the site owner.  it seems pretty legit since no one has ever reported a theft from one his addresses.  but b/c it's done in the browser, can a third party get a hold of the private key you generate?  
> **username_1**: As I understand it, sites using https keep the transferred data reasonably secure. Instawallet seems to get away with using the URL as a kind-of private key. You'd probably want to be careful about which browser add-ons you install though, as they can probably access the page content.  
> **username_3**: Isnt it possible to download the page and run it offline?  
> **username_1**: I haven't tried, but my guess is that yes, it would run offline. I had tried to state that in my answer as "you can probably save a copy of the code, then review it, and use it", but perhaps it needs rewording... thanks  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2013-03-10. Score: 0

A site generating your PRIVATE key for you and matching bitcoin addresses? A disaster waiting to happen. There is almost no way to be sure the information is not stored and then, in a few years, used for withdrawal (theft).

Using the code offline is a better idea, but DO check the code first.

Just my 2 Satoshis...

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: There is a way to make sure the information isn't stored - which is to do all the processing client-side. The bitaddress generator does do the processing client side, but I'm not convinced  1) that there's enough entropy or 2) there's not a side-channel attack.  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2014-11-09. Score: 0

Unless you read and verify all the site's code (big task and impossible to verify for certain anyway, may be errors in your verification) OR provide your own private keys, there's no way to know the site isn't simply providing private keys from a pool (or mathematical subset) known to the site owner (or whoever may have hacked the site's code). THAT is the major risk. Client-side/server-side makes little difference. I'd even go so far as to say that whole concept (client-side) is *false reassurance*. The question still comes down to, *do you trust the code you are running to provide genuinely random private keys*. There's the whole rub.


---

