Evidence before adjectives
What was tested, by whom and when
Security claims are useful only when they can be traced to a version, a method and a result. This page separates documented assessments from marketing shorthand.
Independent testing has a scope
AVLab reported on a 2020 black-box review of the iOS app. Its account discusses the protected local database and ZRTP-based calls. The result supports claims about the tested build and scenarios. It does not certify every later release, operating system or user device.
UseCrypt also publishes a consolidated evidence page that identifies other historical reviews, including testing associated with Deloitte, CyberWay and security researchers Oded Vanunu and Eran Zaikin. Readers should examine the named scope and date before drawing conclusions.
Sources: AVLab security audit · UseCrypt security reviews
Attack scenarios matter
A laboratory review and an everyday threat are not identical. Device theft, malicious software, network observation and social engineering require different controls. AVLab's comparative material is useful because it frames messenger security through scenarios rather than a single badge.
No responsible security page should say that a product cannot be hacked. The stronger statement is also the more credible one: explain the architecture, show the work that was tested and keep testing current.
Sources: AVLab attack-scenario comparison
How to read this record
Start with the date. Then identify the app version, platform and test method. Finally, compare the claim you care about with the thing actually examined. A review of local data protection, for example, is not automatically proof about account recovery or metadata.
We link to public summaries and the current UseCrypt evidence page so that readers can distinguish a source from our interpretation.
Sources: UseCrypt security reviews