5 ms·

I've fully switched to a bitwarden. There's a good selfhosted solution too https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_

I've fully switched to a bitwarden. There's a good selfhosted solution too https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs

skrowl 6y ago
I'm not sure what the benefit to locally hosted solutions like KeePassXC are to BitWarden. You can't beat BitWarden's ease of use and you don't have to manage storage / backups yourself. Bitwarden is open source, has passed multiple independant audits and has easily verified 0 knowledge / e2e crypto (they can't see your data on their servers). What more could you want?
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  To feel superior to the unwashed masses
- class4behavior 6y ago
  >You can't beat BitWarden's ease of use and you don't have to manage storage / backups yourself. You're managing your "self-hosted solution" and only a tiny share of people runs one anyway. Syncing a file along with other data/backups is a sufficient compromise between security and convenience for many people.
- smt88 6y ago
  I have some contracts with large corps and US govt (non-military) that forbid my use of any password manager with cloud hosting. The language is somewhat ambiguous and obviously written before things like LastPass/Dashlane/etc. even existed, but I tend not to editorialize when it comes to security reqs. Maybe BitWarden would work for my purposes, but I have no complaints about KeePass, so I don't know why I'd switch.
- approxim8ion 6y ago
  I'll give you two reasons I use it over Bitwarden. Bitwarden autotype is very sketchy on my (admittedly older) Android phone. For some apps it straight up doesn't show up, on others the prompt disappears when I need it. The alternative is to use the system clipboard which is absolutely terrible and no one should ever do it, especially on smartphones. The special keyboard option that KeepassDX and Keepass2Android provide are significantly better without being too inconvenient in my opinion. Whether or not the autotype issue is fixed on newer Android versions is irrelevant, I shouldn't have to switch out a perfectly working phone just for a workflow I can live without. Also Keepass has been a standard for so long that I just trust it more. If tomorrow Bitwarden were to disappear off the face of the planet (I'm aware it doesn't work that way), I'd have to export my passwords and look for another solution. This is probably mitigated by self-hosting but I have neither the infrastructure nor the inclination to do so. I can theoretically at least continue to use my kdbx file on any platform without issue, sticking to a particular version of a client that I like or switching it out for another if I'm so inclined. No hijinks involved. I will concede that the sync is not as convenient but I use Syncthing and Snapdrop for a bunch of other stuff already so I don't mind, not to mention the fact that I feel better about my vault never being exposed to the internet in any form.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  I'd rather not run .NET (or especially MSSQL) if I can avoid it. I get enough of that shitshow at work... Besides, Syncthing (with history enabled) gives me backups "for free" as part of the regular sync, whereas I'd still have to set that up myself when hosting Bitwarden.
- ldng 6y ago
  On a quick scan, the "BITWARDEN LICENSE AGREEMENT" mentions "Commercial Module License". So some sort of Opencore and, TBH, I'm too lazy to check out further the implications. On the other hand bitwarden_rs is GPL-v3. Like it or not, at the very, it is very clear where it stands. Interestingly, KeePassXC has multiple licences and take the time to neatly list what is under which.
  - ronnier 6y ago
    I don't use any of those. This is written in Go and doesn't use MySql. It's an encrypted file.
polote 6y ago
How can that comment be the best HN comment of a link of a KeepassXC release ?
- atoav 6y ago
  Disclaimer: Hearsay One thing a colleague mentioned about bitwarden that might be good is that you can basically "share" parts of your password store with external users. That could be great if you are the IT guy that convinced people to use a password manager but sometimes still needs access to passwords. For my usecase that never was important which Is why I am sticking with keepass which is pretty great
  - class4behavior 6y ago
    Keepassxc has either keeshare[1] or you just share the db files, while in bitwarden it's organizations and collections[2] [1]: https://keepassxc.org/docs/KeePassXC_UserGuide.html#_database_sharing_with_keeshare https://keepassxc.org/docs/KeePassXC_UserGuide.html#_databas... [2]: https://bitwarden.com/help/article/getting-started-organizations/ https://bitwarden.com/help/article/getting-started-organizat...
0df8dkdf 6y ago
why use self-hosted when it can just run on MY computer? From over 10 years in development and lived all over the world, it taught me to NOT trust the internet. Keep password and really files local whenever possible. Put not so important files on hosting! USB drive are big now.
- atoav 6y ago
  Not all password managment is for one person only. Sometimes you want something that can serve a whole team with some sort of granular level of who is allowed to see what. And from what I understood bitwarden is way better for that usecase than keepass. I use keepass myself, because for my usecase it is the appropriate thing to use. At least I think it is.
  - 0df8dkdf 6y ago
    Ah for sure! However, I think each person ought manage their own password in the current digital age.
- ronnier 6y ago
  it's self hosted on my netowork that if I want to access remotely I can via my VPN.

I've fully switched to a bitwarden. There's a good selfhosted solution too https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs

skrowl 6y ago

I'm not sure what the benefit to locally hosted solutions like KeePassXC are to BitWarden. You can't beat BitWarden's ease of use and you don't have to manage storage / backups yourself. Bitwarden is open source, has passed multiple independant audits and has easily verified 0 knowledge / e2e crypto (they can't see your data on their servers). What more could you want?

NikolaeVarius 6y ago
To feel superior to the unwashed masses
class4behavior 6y ago
>You can't beat BitWarden's ease of use and you don't have to manage storage / backups yourself. You're managing your "self-hosted solution" and only a tiny share of people runs one anyway. Syncing a file along with other data/backups is a sufficient compromise between security and convenience for many people.
smt88 6y ago
I have some contracts with large corps and US govt (non-military) that forbid my use of any password manager with cloud hosting. The language is somewhat ambiguous and obviously written before things like LastPass/Dashlane/etc. even existed, but I tend not to editorialize when it comes to security reqs. Maybe BitWarden would work for my purposes, but I have no complaints about KeePass, so I don't know why I'd switch.
approxim8ion 6y ago
I'll give you two reasons I use it over Bitwarden. Bitwarden autotype is very sketchy on my (admittedly older) Android phone. For some apps it straight up doesn't show up, on others the prompt disappears when I need it. The alternative is to use the system clipboard which is absolutely terrible and no one should ever do it, especially on smartphones. The special keyboard option that KeepassDX and Keepass2Android provide are significantly better without being too inconvenient in my opinion. Whether or not the autotype issue is fixed on newer Android versions is irrelevant, I shouldn't have to switch out a perfectly working phone just for a workflow I can live without. Also Keepass has been a standard for so long that I just trust it more. If tomorrow Bitwarden were to disappear off the face of the planet (I'm aware it doesn't work that way), I'd have to export my passwords and look for another solution. This is probably mitigated by self-hosting but I have neither the infrastructure nor the inclination to do so. I can theoretically at least continue to use my kdbx file on any platform without issue, sticking to a particular version of a client that I like or switching it out for another if I'm so inclined. No hijinks involved. I will concede that the sync is not as convenient but I use Syncthing and Snapdrop for a bunch of other stuff already so I don't mind, not to mention the fact that I feel better about my vault never being exposed to the internet in any form.
Nullabillity 6y ago
I'd rather not run .NET (or especially MSSQL) if I can avoid it. I get enough of that shitshow at work... Besides, Syncthing (with history enabled) gives me backups "for free" as part of the regular sync, whereas I'd still have to set that up myself when hosting Bitwarden.
ldng 6y ago
On a quick scan, the "BITWARDEN LICENSE AGREEMENT" mentions "Commercial Module License". So some sort of Opencore and, TBH, I'm too lazy to check out further the implications. On the other hand bitwarden_rs is GPL-v3. Like it or not, at the very, it is very clear where it stands. Interestingly, KeePassXC has multiple licences and take the time to neatly list what is under which.
- ronnier 6y ago
  I don't use any of those. This is written in Go and doesn't use MySql. It's an encrypted file.

polote 6y ago

How can that comment be the best HN comment of a link of a KeepassXC release ?

atoav 6y ago
Disclaimer: Hearsay One thing a colleague mentioned about bitwarden that might be good is that you can basically "share" parts of your password store with external users. That could be great if you are the IT guy that convinced people to use a password manager but sometimes still needs access to passwords. For my usecase that never was important which Is why I am sticking with keepass which is pretty great
- class4behavior 6y ago
  Keepassxc has either keeshare[1] or you just share the db files, while in bitwarden it's organizations and collections[2] [1]: https://keepassxc.org/docs/KeePassXC_UserGuide.html#_database_sharing_with_keeshare https://keepassxc.org/docs/KeePassXC_UserGuide.html#_databas... [2]: https://bitwarden.com/help/article/getting-started-organizations/ https://bitwarden.com/help/article/getting-started-organizat...

0df8dkdf 6y ago

why use self-hosted when it can just run on MY computer? From over 10 years in development and lived all over the world, it taught me to NOT trust the internet. Keep password and really files local whenever possible. Put not so important files on hosting! USB drive are big now.

atoav 6y ago
Not all password managment is for one person only. Sometimes you want something that can serve a whole team with some sort of granular level of who is allowed to see what. And from what I understood bitwarden is way better for that usecase than keepass. I use keepass myself, because for my usecase it is the appropriate thing to use. At least I think it is.
- 0df8dkdf 6y ago
  Ah for sure! However, I think each person ought manage their own password in the current digital age.
ronnier 6y ago
it's self hosted on my netowork that if I want to access remotely I can via my VPN.