4 ms·

As someone using Keepass2 (mono on Linux), can someone knowledgeable briefly tell me (and probably others) why should and why should not I switch to KeePassX?

As someone using Keepass2 (mono on Linux), can someone knowledgeable briefly tell me (and probably others) why should and why should not I switch to KeePassX? I'm getting the feeling that this uses the older protocol? I got a good answer to the above question from desdiv so I'm adding an edit: Is there a reason to use this (and not use this) in place of KeePass2 on Windows?

TokenDiversity 9y ago
I'll answer part of my own question- this does look like it's compatible with the Keepass protocol 2. So that shouldn't be the reason to stop. Of course there could be other reasons.
- phoerious 9y ago
  KeePassXC does support the KeePass2 format (i.e., KDBX3). It does not (yet) support the very latest format (KDBX4), but by default KeePass also still uses KDBX3, so both are compatible.
desdiv 9y ago
1. Unlocking the database takes much longer than it should. Linux Keepass2 is much slower at unlocking than Windows Keepass2 on the same machine. 2. On Linux, after entering the password the windows disappears, giving no UI feedback during the lengthy unlocking process. When you type the password wrong, it takes even longer for some reason, and there's no tray icon when you type the password wrong, so you'd have to minimize all your windows to find the dialog box all the way in the back. 3. Lacking Unicode support in 2017 is simply unacceptable: https://i.imgur.com/X0T46bY.png https://i.imgur.com/X0T46bY.png None of this is the fault of the Keepass developers, since all three problems are absent in the Windows build. As far as I can tell the problem lies with Mono.
- TokenDiversity 9y ago
  Yeah I just downloaded. This seems like a good native drop-in replacement. Even the menus et all seem to be in the same place. And Unicode works, yeah! I have a really old computer and keepass2 opens stuff instantly so I'm guessing I'm probably not using good enough security.
- zingmars 9y ago
  It might take slightly longer, sure, but just slightly (instant vs maybe 0.5s at most). Maybe my database isn't big enough (~200 passwords) for this to be annoying, but it's certainly not that bad.

TokenDiversity 9y ago

I'll answer part of my own question- this does look like it's compatible with the Keepass protocol 2. So that shouldn't be the reason to stop. Of course there could be other reasons.

phoerious 9y ago
KeePassXC does support the KeePass2 format (i.e., KDBX3). It does not (yet) support the very latest format (KDBX4), but by default KeePass also still uses KDBX3, so both are compatible.

desdiv 9y ago

1. Unlocking the database takes much longer than it should. Linux Keepass2 is much slower at unlocking than Windows Keepass2 on the same machine. 2. On Linux, after entering the password the windows disappears, giving no UI feedback during the lengthy unlocking process. When you type the password wrong, it takes even longer for some reason, and there's no tray icon when you type the password wrong, so you'd have to minimize all your windows to find the dialog box all the way in the back. 3. Lacking Unicode support in 2017 is simply unacceptable: https://i.imgur.com/X0T46bY.png https://i.imgur.com/X0T46bY.png None of this is the fault of the Keepass developers, since all three problems are absent in the Windows build. As far as I can tell the problem lies with Mono.

TokenDiversity 9y ago
Yeah I just downloaded. This seems like a good native drop-in replacement. Even the menus et all seem to be in the same place. And Unicode works, yeah! I have a really old computer and keepass2 opens stuff instantly so I'm guessing I'm probably not using good enough security.
zingmars 9y ago
It might take slightly longer, sure, but just slightly (instant vs maybe 0.5s at most). Maybe my database isn't big enough (~200 passwords) for this to be annoying, but it's certainly not that bad.