4 ms·

I like this a lot. I've been a Bitwarden user for the past few months and I'm not looking back, but I'm so happy there's reasonable competition: - It's still O

I like this a lot. I've been a Bitwarden user for the past few months and I'm not looking back, but I'm so happy there's reasonable competition: - It's still OSS, so you can self-host, which is a big selling point for me - There's a managed/hosted option, which is a big selling point for probably most users - It's got a browser plugin à la BitWarden/1Password, which is a crucial feature for any well-polished password manager (and hopefully it also comes with Android autofill integration) Hopefully Passbolt, BitWarden and others can keep eachother on their toes and help this be an innovative and widely accessible space! Expanding on that last point: I'm a huge fan of the general idea of having the option of self-hosting with a business model revolving around a paid, managed option, for password managers or otherwise.

dmacedo 6y ago
Likewise, and I'm loving Bitwarden so far! Although I'm using the dockerized rust API (1) for self-hosting it, and so far it's been working great for months! I am keeping a close eye on the container, and backing up the data hourly to ensure I don't need to worry about loosing anything. (1): https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  bitwarden_rs is definitely the way to go. I’ve been hosting it for my own use only for a couple of years now; never had any problems, and it’s a negligible drain on resources. It uses less than 20MB of disk space (15MB of the package, 2.3MB of icon cache, 408KB of sqlite database), about 24MB of RAM (admittedly it used to be about 13MB, but it’s still insignificant drain) and has an average CPU usage of less than 0.002% over 54 days of uptime (1:22.55). Meanwhile the standard Bitwarden backend needs SQL Server and demands to have 2GB of RAM. No idea how little you could actually get away with, but I’m confident won’t be 25MB.
- pricechild 6y ago
  Also a massive fan of this project - seems a no brainier compared to the original for personal use. My big recommendation is to backup the binary at the same time as your sql backup. They've got a github sponsors link too FWIW.
- 8fingerlouie 6y ago
  I was evaluating Bitwarden years ago (before bitwarden_rs), but was thrown off by the lack of support for 2FA tokens without a subscription. Does selfhosting with bitwarden_rs solve this ? or do i still need a subscription for storing 2FA tokens along with passwords ? I have absolutely no problem paying once per major version for software, open source or not, but i refuse to pay any subscription. At least when buying a version i can choose to upgrade or not.
  - half-kh-hacker 6y ago
    bitwarden_rs solves this.
  - graton 6y ago
    Yes bitwarden_rs supports 2FA, including U2F keys. I setup my own instance in a Docker container on my Synology. I only have access to it while I am at home (or VPNed in) as I'm not willing to punch a hole in my firewall for external access.
fraktl 6y ago
Another happy Bitwarden user here. I reviewed several different solutions for use within our company, and Bitwarden wins. We didn't go with Passbolt because its Chrome extension didn't work for us - there was no way to set the Passbolt URL so I never got the chance to check its autofill functionality. Bitwarden provides mobile apps, desktop apps for all operating systems and working browser extensions. Pricing is reasonable and not over the top and installation for self-hosted version is trivial. I'm glad competition exists, but they're falling short.

dmacedo 6y ago

Likewise, and I'm loving Bitwarden so far! Although I'm using the dockerized rust API (1) for self-hosting it, and so far it's been working great for months! I am keeping a close eye on the container, and backing up the data hourly to ensure I don't need to worry about loosing anything. (1): https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs

chrismorgan 6y ago
bitwarden_rs is definitely the way to go. I’ve been hosting it for my own use only for a couple of years now; never had any problems, and it’s a negligible drain on resources. It uses less than 20MB of disk space (15MB of the package, 2.3MB of icon cache, 408KB of sqlite database), about 24MB of RAM (admittedly it used to be about 13MB, but it’s still insignificant drain) and has an average CPU usage of less than 0.002% over 54 days of uptime (1:22.55). Meanwhile the standard Bitwarden backend needs SQL Server and demands to have 2GB of RAM. No idea how little you could actually get away with, but I’m confident won’t be 25MB.
pricechild 6y ago
Also a massive fan of this project - seems a no brainier compared to the original for personal use. My big recommendation is to backup the binary at the same time as your sql backup. They've got a github sponsors link too FWIW.
8fingerlouie 6y ago
I was evaluating Bitwarden years ago (before bitwarden_rs), but was thrown off by the lack of support for 2FA tokens without a subscription. Does selfhosting with bitwarden_rs solve this ? or do i still need a subscription for storing 2FA tokens along with passwords ? I have absolutely no problem paying once per major version for software, open source or not, but i refuse to pay any subscription. At least when buying a version i can choose to upgrade or not.
- half-kh-hacker 6y ago
  bitwarden_rs solves this.
- graton 6y ago
  Yes bitwarden_rs supports 2FA, including U2F keys. I setup my own instance in a Docker container on my Synology. I only have access to it while I am at home (or VPNed in) as I'm not willing to punch a hole in my firewall for external access.

fraktl 6y ago

Another happy Bitwarden user here. I reviewed several different solutions for use within our company, and Bitwarden wins. We didn't go with Passbolt because its Chrome extension didn't work for us - there was no way to set the Passbolt URL so I never got the chance to check its autofill functionality. Bitwarden provides mobile apps, desktop apps for all operating systems and working browser extensions. Pricing is reasonable and not over the top and installation for self-hosted version is trivial. I'm glad competition exists, but they're falling short.