4 ms·

Bitwarden can be self-hosted. $10/year subscription cost is well, well worth it. If you don't self-host, note that everything is encrypted before being stored

Bitwarden can be self-hosted. $10/year subscription cost is well, well worth it. If you don't self-host, note that everything is encrypted before being stored at bitwarden. They don't have access to your passwords.

silisili 5y ago
Same. 10/yr is not worth self hosting IMO, unless for security/paranoia reasons. Having a reliable, stable PW manager with a good app and TOTP capabilities feels like a steal at that price.
- sliken 5y ago
  Normally I'd agree, but a single docker command makes is so easy to run. I still recommend the $10/year jsut to help support them.
torstenvl 5y ago
Bitwarden is just as user-hostile. They go out of their way to make it harder to own your data, when it should just be local-first vaults. Import/export is irrelevant. I want to own my data, not just be able to check out a copy whenever I want.
- noman-land 5y ago
  Curious what makes you say this. I recently started using it and it has prominent import and export functionality.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- sliken 5y ago
  How so? It's easy to run vault warden if you want local, and their android app supports connecting to your local vault warden. You can also export your data. How could they be less user-hostile?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    BitWarden is server-based and not local-first. Stop trolling for software that does not meet the parameters of the OP just because you disagree with those parameters.
    - sliken 5y ago
      Er, not sure how I'm disagreeing or trolling. You claim I'm trolling without mentioning specifically why. Which parameter of the OP isn't being met? You can install the android bitwarden, which maintains a local DB. You can use it offline, and you can sync as you need with a server as needed or never at all. Which fits my definition of "local first". To double check I just put my phone in airplane mode, opened my local vault, and saw my password DB, which I could edit. You can sync by telling it to, and there's plugins for all major browsers. You can use a bitwarden provided server, run your own, or not have one. You can export and sync via dropbox, icloud, syncthing, etc. Not sure why you would do that instead of clicking sync and letting the client upload to your own server or a bitwarden server. Not sure how this could be consider user hostile. The rust server in particular is open source, single command to install, runs happily in provided docker container, etc. Exports are available in .json, or .csv. You can export from a web vault, browser extension, desktop client, mobile, or even command line. I'm not trolling, I use bitwarden on android, and vaultwarden (rust server compatible with warden) on the server and it works great. I'm quite fond of it's security, track record, security assessments, open source, SOC certifications etc. I also like having the local DB on a device I control and doesn't depend on any cloud, remote server, etc so I can have my password db accessible without any internet access.

silisili 5y ago

Same. 10/yr is not worth self hosting IMO, unless for security/paranoia reasons. Having a reliable, stable PW manager with a good app and TOTP capabilities feels like a steal at that price.

sliken 5y ago
Normally I'd agree, but a single docker command makes is so easy to run. I still recommend the $10/year jsut to help support them.

torstenvl 5y ago

Bitwarden is just as user-hostile. They go out of their way to make it harder to own your data, when it should just be local-first vaults. Import/export is irrelevant. I want to own my data, not just be able to check out a copy whenever I want.

noman-land 5y ago
Curious what makes you say this. I recently started using it and it has prominent import and export functionality.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
sliken 5y ago
How so? It's easy to run vault warden if you want local, and their android app supports connecting to your local vault warden. You can also export your data. How could they be less user-hostile?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 5y ago
  BitWarden is server-based and not local-first. Stop trolling for software that does not meet the parameters of the OP just because you disagree with those parameters.
  - sliken 5y ago
    Er, not sure how I'm disagreeing or trolling. You claim I'm trolling without mentioning specifically why. Which parameter of the OP isn't being met? You can install the android bitwarden, which maintains a local DB. You can use it offline, and you can sync as you need with a server as needed or never at all. Which fits my definition of "local first". To double check I just put my phone in airplane mode, opened my local vault, and saw my password DB, which I could edit. You can sync by telling it to, and there's plugins for all major browsers. You can use a bitwarden provided server, run your own, or not have one. You can export and sync via dropbox, icloud, syncthing, etc. Not sure why you would do that instead of clicking sync and letting the client upload to your own server or a bitwarden server. Not sure how this could be consider user hostile. The rust server in particular is open source, single command to install, runs happily in provided docker container, etc. Exports are available in .json, or .csv. You can export from a web vault, browser extension, desktop client, mobile, or even command line. I'm not trolling, I use bitwarden on android, and vaultwarden (rust server compatible with warden) on the server and it works great. I'm quite fond of it's security, track record, security assessments, open source, SOC certifications etc. I also like having the local DB on a device I control and doesn't depend on any cloud, remote server, etc so I can have my password db accessible without any internet access.