Bitwarden can be fully self hosted, I’m doing it. My Bitwarden server doesn’t (and can’t) talk to them at all as it has no way to access the internet. They know nothing about my deployment except that I signed up for a free license key.
Comment on Bitwarden Makes Change To Address Recent Open-Source Concerns
net00@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Why would anyone trust any company with their passwords??
Just use keepass and not bother with BS
CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
kameecoding@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Are you a software developer ? Because you are way out of touch with what users want.
drspod@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
I get why you’d suggest the previous commenter is out of touch with what users want, but what does that have to do with being a software engineer?
kameecoding@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
A joke about shitty developers.
drspod@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Contravariant@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Well, who did you trust to build your hardware?
mac@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I used to use Keepass and sync thing and would consistently run into conflicts between my desktop and mobile entries. Maybe there’s a better way to do it that I’m missing, but that was very annoying
cley_faye@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I use this setup for my personal passwords, using nextcloud as the sync solution. A semi-fix for that was using Keepass2Android (on Android obviously). It integrates with nextcloud directly, keep a local DB of passwords, and would only load the remote one (and merge) on unlock and updates, not keeping it “constantly” sync on every remote change. It works well… most of the time… with only two devices that almost always have connection to the server… and for only one user.
It’s overly clunky though. It’s the big advantage of “service based” password manager against “single file based” ones. They handle sync. We have plans to move to bitwarden at my workplace, and since the client supports multiple accounts on multiple servers, I’ll probably move to that for personal stuff too. The convenience is just there, without downside.
noxy@yiffit.net 2 weeks ago
cuz being able to log in is handy sometimes
Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Because most people need a cloud solution for synchronization across devices. Unless you’re spinning up your own service like Nextcloud or similar for this, relying on a commercial cloud storage service for storing the file is just as dangerous (perhaps more so, as your attack surface is now across two third party services) as relying on someone like Bitwarden or Lastpass.
net00@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
There’s a big difference. You trust entities like bitwarden/lastpass/etc to properly encrypt the data, protect your master key, and trust their entire architecture behind the scenes.
When you encrypt the keepass DB that’s all done by you locally with a open source client. No one knows your master key, and you get a simple encrypted file. You can hand that file to hackers if you want, will be useless without the key.
I put one of the copies of my keepass on onedrive, and syncs perfectly across all devices.
Companies can enshiffity at a moments notice.
Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Lol, imagine ridiculing users for trusting an FOSS company to handle their password management, and then storing your encrypted password DB in Microsoft’s OneDrive 😆
net00@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I knew a comment like this was coming, but unless you can show how microsoft can decrypt my kdbx I stand fully by my current setup.
Llewellyn@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
encrypted is the key word
Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 2 weeks ago
I do not trust bitwarden to encrypt my data anymore than anyone trusts keypass to encrypt my data.
They’re both open source, you’re plainly mistaken.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
And you are aware that bitwarden knows nothing about the passwords inside the vault and the vault is encrypted in zero knowledge type of fashion?
AND that Bitwarden does external audits?
AND if you loose your master password you are out of luck as they can’t support you helping crack the decryption?
cley_faye@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Except for the part that it’s not a question of trust (being open source), there’s no third-party architecture to trust (it can and should be self-hosted), the data on the server are also encrypted client-side before leaving your device, sure.
Oh, and you also get proper sync, no risk of desync if two devices gets a change while offline without having to go check your in-house sync solution, easy share between user (still with no trust needed in the server), all working perfectly with good user UI integration for almost every systems.
Yeah, I wonder why people bother using that, instead of deploying clunky, single-user solution.