Comment on Bitwarden Makes Change To Address Recent Open-Source Concerns
soul@lemmy.world 2 weeks agoThis is where your lack of understanding of the open source think is readily apparent to everyone arguing with you. If it was backdoored, many people would be calling that out. In fact, this was one of the exact reasons at the heart of the original concerns leading to this story.
The fact that the source is available means that we can see exactly how the data is encrypted, allowing assurances to be made independently.
If nothing else, I trust Bitwarden MORE because of that and I’m happy to pay them for their services since it helps find further development.
Llewellyn@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
In theory. And not necessarily soon. Don’t forget the context of this thread: we compare bitwarden with keepass, which does not offer to you your password base on their server side.
kurcatovium@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Trusting one FOSS client good. Trusting different FOSS client bad. Logic where?
Llewellyn@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
That different FOSS client stores your data on their company’s server. It’s an important factor, IMO.
kurcatovium@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Dude, how is bitwarden hosting your own, locally encrypted (in FOSS client) password database any different than using keypass and syncing it however you want?
I don’t even use Bitwarden myself, I’m using keepass too, but this attitude is … weird?