5 ms·

The main knock against KeePass for teams is that it's all or nothing. We've had to create multiple databases for different job functions, which becomes a pain t

The main knock against KeePass for teams is that it's all or nothing. We've had to create multiple databases for different job functions, which becomes a pain to maintain. Not to mention that anyone with access to the database could make edits and you wouldn't know who. EDIT: Just want to point out that it appears that this software allows you to define access for different members of a team, but I haven't had a chance to try it.

braderhart 10y ago
That's what I'm suggesting though. I'd love to see a Qt/QML application that is like KeePass, but has built in support for external databases for users/groups.
koolba 10y ago
> The main knock against KeePass for teams is that it's all or nothing. ... and the binary format makes KeePass merges impossible. Even if it's just you, if you have multiple computers you need to make sure you have the latest copy before adding something. That's what's nice about pass, it plays nice with git, rsync, and just about everything else. Last write wins per credential. If you tack on history with git (or ZFS snapshots!) you have a central copy that you can share among a team. Someone should make a slick UI atop a pass directory with a browser plugin.
- aeorgnoieang 10y ago
  Thanks for pointing out `pass`! I've been manually merging a set of Password-Safe-format password files (one for each of my many computers) and I've been thinking about alternatives for a long while. I was actually thinking about how I could combine encrypted files with Git to get history and painless merging – I'm glad to know that someone else had the same ideas!
  - drdaeman 10y ago
    Pass has one limitation - having filenames in plaintext. This could or could not be an issue for local repositories, but this is definitely an issue for remotes. Sadly, Android client (which is quite good otherwise) doesn't support git-remote-gcrypt.
    - aeorgnoieang 10y ago
      > having filenames in plaintext Why is this a limitation? Are you stating that each file in the 'repo' is encrypted separately? I figured it was the entire repo as a directory, in which case, when it's 'at rest', the whole thing is encrypted as a blob.
      - drdaeman 10y ago
        > the whole thing is encrypted as a blob No, it's not. With pass (just to be sure - we're talking about zx2c4's one, right?), the store contains a bunch of independent gpg-encrypted text files. However, the filenames are not encrypted or obfuscated by any means. This has pros and cons. On the good side, you don't have to decrypt anything (which means, actually use your GPG key, which is best kept on an unplugged HSM) to just check if the credential's in the store (think auto-fill suggestion). Also, this architecture allows dead-simple (plain rsync or git!) approach for synchronization when there are no entry-level conflicts. On the bad side, anyone who has access to the filenames (local filesystem access or a clone of git repo) can figure out which resources you have credentials for. That's the price of the simplicity. I.e. what you see in the very first example at https://www.passwordstore.org/ https://www.passwordstore.org/ in the "Using the password store" section are the actual at-rest filenames. Run `ls -lR ~/.password-store` if you don't believe me ;) Use of ecryptfs/encfs or git-remote-gcrypt was suggested to mitigate this, but those aren't perfect. Well, everything depends on the threat scenarios you consider.
        aeorgnoieang 10y ago
        Sorry if this is too late to not be annoying. What're the downsides or limitations of ecryptfs/encfs or git-remote-gcrypt – I was looking over Pass again and realized all of what you stated. I figured ecryptfs/encfs would work well enough to encrypt the Pass repo itself.

braderhart 10y ago

That's what I'm suggesting though. I'd love to see a Qt/QML application that is like KeePass, but has built in support for external databases for users/groups.

koolba 10y ago

> The main knock against KeePass for teams is that it's all or nothing. ... and the binary format makes KeePass merges impossible. Even if it's just you, if you have multiple computers you need to make sure you have the latest copy before adding something. That's what's nice about pass, it plays nice with git, rsync, and just about everything else. Last write wins per credential. If you tack on history with git (or ZFS snapshots!) you have a central copy that you can share among a team. Someone should make a slick UI atop a pass directory with a browser plugin.

aeorgnoieang 10y ago
Thanks for pointing out `pass`! I've been manually merging a set of Password-Safe-format password files (one for each of my many computers) and I've been thinking about alternatives for a long while. I was actually thinking about how I could combine encrypted files with Git to get history and painless merging – I'm glad to know that someone else had the same ideas!
- drdaeman 10y ago
  Pass has one limitation - having filenames in plaintext. This could or could not be an issue for local repositories, but this is definitely an issue for remotes. Sadly, Android client (which is quite good otherwise) doesn't support git-remote-gcrypt.
  - aeorgnoieang 10y ago
    > having filenames in plaintext Why is this a limitation? Are you stating that each file in the 'repo' is encrypted separately? I figured it was the entire repo as a directory, in which case, when it's 'at rest', the whole thing is encrypted as a blob.
    - drdaeman 10y ago
      > the whole thing is encrypted as a blob No, it's not. With pass (just to be sure - we're talking about zx2c4's one, right?), the store contains a bunch of independent gpg-encrypted text files. However, the filenames are not encrypted or obfuscated by any means. This has pros and cons. On the good side, you don't have to decrypt anything (which means, actually use your GPG key, which is best kept on an unplugged HSM) to just check if the credential's in the store (think auto-fill suggestion). Also, this architecture allows dead-simple (plain rsync or git!) approach for synchronization when there are no entry-level conflicts. On the bad side, anyone who has access to the filenames (local filesystem access or a clone of git repo) can figure out which resources you have credentials for. That's the price of the simplicity. I.e. what you see in the very first example at https://www.passwordstore.org/ https://www.passwordstore.org/ in the "Using the password store" section are the actual at-rest filenames. Run `ls -lR ~/.password-store` if you don't believe me ;) Use of ecryptfs/encfs or git-remote-gcrypt was suggested to mitigate this, but those aren't perfect. Well, everything depends on the threat scenarios you consider.
      - aeorgnoieang 10y ago
        Sorry if this is too late to not be annoying. What're the downsides or limitations of ecryptfs/encfs or git-remote-gcrypt – I was looking over Pass again and realized all of what you stated. I figured ecryptfs/encfs would work well enough to encrypt the Pass repo itself.