5 ms·

If I'm a happy KeePass user, and everything just works, is there any reason to switch to KeePassXC?

otherme123 5y ago
I find the browser plugin easier to install, at least on Firefox. I tried to set up the auto-type of KeePass, but it never really worked. Plus, I'm not sure if KeePass can generate TOTPs (if it can, it's too hidden for me), but with KeePassXC is right there after an easy setup. Still has both installed, but only use the XC.
ghoward 5y ago
KeePass, as far as I can tell, is inactive. KeePassXC seems to be the logical successor that is active.
- gruez 5y ago
  >KeePass, as far as I can tell, is inactive really? looking at the keepass site: >Latest News >KeePass 2.50 released >2022-01-09 14:15. Read More » >KeePass 1.40 released >2022-01-02 11:42. Read More » >KeePass 2.49 released >2021-09-10 16:18. Read More » >KeePass 2.48 (2.48.1) released >2021-05-07 14:34. Read More » For something that just needs to store passwords, I don't see why there needs to be monthly updates or anything like that.
  - skipnup 5y ago
    > For something that just needs to store passwords, I don't see why there needs to be monthly updates or anything like that. Because usability and UI do make improvements (probably an unpopular opinion on HN...) and follows trends, KeePass does look completely outdated, the UX is completely outdated and the – nowadays – most important part, browser integration, is only achieved via plugins. Don't get me wrong, I still use KeePass, but I would never recommend KeePass to non-technical users (and would think twice about recommending it to technical users) while I would recommend KeePassXC to my mother.
    - KronisLV 5y ago
      > Because usability and UI do make improvements (probably an unpopular opinion on HN...) and follows trends, KeePass does look completely outdated, the UX is completely outdated and the – nowadays – most important part, browser integration, is only achieved via plugins. This is a pretty good point, even if i'm of the opposite opinion! To me, KeePass is wonderfully boring and usable, much like spreadsheet software (e.g. LibreOffice Calc), it doesn't waste space and does everything i need it to. Furthermore, browser integration actually wouldn't be something i want - i'd prefer to keep those pieces of software as far from one another as possible. Though using the OS clipboard could also be problematic, of course, which is my current approach when i want to log into a site. > Don't get me wrong, I still use KeePass, but I would never recommend KeePass to non-technical users (and would think twice about recommending it to technical users) while I would recommend KeePassXC to my mother. Your argument about suggesting the more "modern" looking software to non-technical folks is a good one, though! Of course, at the end of the day, some folks will still store their passwords in plain text or Excel/Word files because the cognitive load of using any non-browser-based password manager is too much cognitive load for them. Or even using a password manager at all, hence we still get sticky notes with passwords etc., human nature isn't too likely to change anytime soon.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >To me, KeePass is wonderfully boring and usable, much like spreadsheet software (e.g. LibreOffice Calc), it doesn't waste space and does everything i need it to. agreed. keepassxc has much more padding/whitespace than keepass. >Furthermore, browser integration actually wouldn't be something i want - i'd prefer to keep those pieces of software as far from one another as possible. I'm mixed on browser integration. On one hand it's more convenient and can potentially be more secure (can protect against phishing attacks because it can check the url for you). On the other hand, having a direct link to your entire password vault is a massive attack surface. The ideal implementation for me would be an addon that can auto-fill credentials, but require explicit approval from the app to fill anything. To my knowledge no such implementation exists. >Though using the OS clipboard could also be problematic, of course, which is my current approach when i want to log into a site. Keepass has auto-type, which works around this.
- ivberrOg 5y ago
  most recent update on 1/9 https://keepass.info/news/n220109_2.50.html https://keepass.info/news/n220109_2.50.html
- hoseja 5y ago
  It had an update this month. It's solid IMO. Gives me IrfanView vibes for some reason.
mt_ 5y ago
I like the KeePassXC interface way better, the database format is the same though.
sdflhasjd 5y ago
I would say no. I've never found much of a notable difference between the two clients. I personally prefer the original client for it's UI and only use XC for Mac because it doesn't need XQuartz
elvis70 5y ago
It is written in C++ and doesn't depend on .NET.
- GordonS 5y ago
  As a .NET developer, that's not something that would concern me :)
npteljes 5y ago
I don't think there is, the original is as good as it gets I think. I only switched to KeePassXC for their native Linux support.
theandrewbailey 5y ago
I switched to XC years ago when I discovered browser autofill support, TOTP, and SSH key functionality are all built-in and don't need plugins. (fewer things to set up and keep up to date) Since the database file format is the same, the switch was painless.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
KeePass is made in C#, KeePassXC is made in C++. That alone might make your life easier if you need to use it in Mac or Linux, because I've found making Keepass' C# plugins work on mono is tricky, while KeePassXC doesn't need plugins for my use cases. Edit: Looks like KeePassXC doesn't support plugins, and I hadn't noticed :/

I find the browser plugin easier to install, at least on Firefox. I tried to set up the auto-type of KeePass, but it never really worked. Plus, I'm not sure if KeePass can generate TOTPs (if it can, it's too hidden for me), but with KeePassXC is right there after an easy setup. Still has both installed, but only use the XC.

ghoward 5y ago

KeePass, as far as I can tell, is inactive. KeePassXC seems to be the logical successor that is active.

gruez 5y ago
>KeePass, as far as I can tell, is inactive really? looking at the keepass site: >Latest News >KeePass 2.50 released >2022-01-09 14:15. Read More » >KeePass 1.40 released >2022-01-02 11:42. Read More » >KeePass 2.49 released >2021-09-10 16:18. Read More » >KeePass 2.48 (2.48.1) released >2021-05-07 14:34. Read More » For something that just needs to store passwords, I don't see why there needs to be monthly updates or anything like that.
- skipnup 5y ago
  > For something that just needs to store passwords, I don't see why there needs to be monthly updates or anything like that. Because usability and UI do make improvements (probably an unpopular opinion on HN...) and follows trends, KeePass does look completely outdated, the UX is completely outdated and the – nowadays – most important part, browser integration, is only achieved via plugins. Don't get me wrong, I still use KeePass, but I would never recommend KeePass to non-technical users (and would think twice about recommending it to technical users) while I would recommend KeePassXC to my mother.
  - KronisLV 5y ago
    > Because usability and UI do make improvements (probably an unpopular opinion on HN...) and follows trends, KeePass does look completely outdated, the UX is completely outdated and the – nowadays – most important part, browser integration, is only achieved via plugins. This is a pretty good point, even if i'm of the opposite opinion! To me, KeePass is wonderfully boring and usable, much like spreadsheet software (e.g. LibreOffice Calc), it doesn't waste space and does everything i need it to. Furthermore, browser integration actually wouldn't be something i want - i'd prefer to keep those pieces of software as far from one another as possible. Though using the OS clipboard could also be problematic, of course, which is my current approach when i want to log into a site. > Don't get me wrong, I still use KeePass, but I would never recommend KeePass to non-technical users (and would think twice about recommending it to technical users) while I would recommend KeePassXC to my mother. Your argument about suggesting the more "modern" looking software to non-technical folks is a good one, though! Of course, at the end of the day, some folks will still store their passwords in plain text or Excel/Word files because the cognitive load of using any non-browser-based password manager is too much cognitive load for them. Or even using a password manager at all, hence we still get sticky notes with passwords etc., human nature isn't too likely to change anytime soon.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >To me, KeePass is wonderfully boring and usable, much like spreadsheet software (e.g. LibreOffice Calc), it doesn't waste space and does everything i need it to. agreed. keepassxc has much more padding/whitespace than keepass. >Furthermore, browser integration actually wouldn't be something i want - i'd prefer to keep those pieces of software as far from one another as possible. I'm mixed on browser integration. On one hand it's more convenient and can potentially be more secure (can protect against phishing attacks because it can check the url for you). On the other hand, having a direct link to your entire password vault is a massive attack surface. The ideal implementation for me would be an addon that can auto-fill credentials, but require explicit approval from the app to fill anything. To my knowledge no such implementation exists. >Though using the OS clipboard could also be problematic, of course, which is my current approach when i want to log into a site. Keepass has auto-type, which works around this.
ivberrOg 5y ago
most recent update on 1/9 https://keepass.info/news/n220109_2.50.html https://keepass.info/news/n220109_2.50.html
hoseja 5y ago
It had an update this month. It's solid IMO. Gives me IrfanView vibes for some reason.

mt_ 5y ago

I like the KeePassXC interface way better, the database format is the same though.

sdflhasjd 5y ago

I would say no. I've never found much of a notable difference between the two clients. I personally prefer the original client for it's UI and only use XC for Mac because it doesn't need XQuartz

elvis70 5y ago

It is written in C++ and doesn't depend on .NET.

GordonS 5y ago
As a .NET developer, that's not something that would concern me :)

npteljes 5y ago

I don't think there is, the original is as good as it gets I think. I only switched to KeePassXC for their native Linux support.

theandrewbailey 5y ago

I switched to XC years ago when I discovered browser autofill support, TOTP, and SSH key functionality are all built-in and don't need plugins. (fewer things to set up and keep up to date) Since the database file format is the same, the switch was painless.

ASalazarMX 5y ago

KeePass is made in C#, KeePassXC is made in C++. That alone might make your life easier if you need to use it in Mac or Linux, because I've found making Keepass' C# plugins work on mono is tricky, while KeePassXC doesn't need plugins for my use cases. Edit: Looks like KeePassXC doesn't support plugins, and I hadn't noticed :/