3 ms·

If a document alone lends credence to their claims, the source code would do wonders. It's not about public contributions, it's about transparency and good fait

If a document alone lends credence to their claims, the source code would do wonders. It's not about public contributions, it's about transparency and good faith.

maccard 4y ago
Why do you trust the source code is actually what they deploy to your device, or that what they build isnt linked against extra libraries, maybe even internal library?
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  It's a matter of trust and good faith. You could apply the same dichotomy to actual FOSS programs.
  - maccard 4y ago
    I do. Having source code available does6 mean anything if you can't verify the source yourself, or if the source can't be community certified. There's no point in a backend being open source, if nobody can verify what is running there. There's no point in an iOS app being open source if the app is distributed through the app store, as we have no way to verify that it is what it says it is. Meanwhile if I'm running Debian I trust the maintainers have built the source code to distribute to me, similarly with homebrew and chocolatey. > Its a matter of trust and good faith Indeed it is, and you have to trust 1password, and if you don't, it doesn't matter whether there's good faith or not.
    - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
      > Indeed it is, and you have to trust 1password, and if you don't, it doesn't matter whether there's good faith or not. Precisely. By not showing their source code, they implicitly state that they don't care about whether you trust them or not when it comes to source code. It is not a meaningless distinction. Bitwarden for example lists being open-source as a plus in security. You may not personally see it that way, but a big part of the industry does.
      - roustem 4y ago
        Intellectual property is important and making everything open source would allow our competitors to easily copy it or at least get an idea how to improve their products. It is hard to seriously compare the features, the security design, and the UX of Bitwarden to 1Password — it is not close. Just a few examples: being able to edit your data while offline, ability have large notes with Markdown formatting (aka "Moby Dick Workout"), support for large datasets (more than 100,000 items). 1Password has been in business for 17 years, longer that any other password manager. It is very difficult to have a long term business model built completely on open source.
        EMIRELADERO 4y ago
        I never said open source was to be the foundation. In fact, I never talked about open source at all. All I'm referring to is source availability. As I said earlier I'm not going to complain that you won't use a free license such as MIT or AGPL or whatever else. The real issue is just the sources being publicly auditable. Are you worried about your competitors copying your non-copyrightable material? Ideas? While there would still be an issue, I would be a bit less harsh on the policy if at least the clients were source-available. Transparency is security. > It is hard to seriously compare the features, the security design, and the UX of Bitwarden to 1Password — it is not close. How does Bitwarden not come close in security? All I can come up with is the secret key requirement. Is that all? If anything Bitwarden feels more secure because of its transparency. You can see the developers working live, each commit they make.
        roustem 4y ago
        The client source code is the where the most of the IP is. The server code is pretty dumb on it own, all it does is the sync and permissions. One of the issues with Bitwarden encryption is the fact that every field is encrypted separately and that could provide more info to the attacker. For example, you could tell how many URLs in a particular login or if there is note for an item and how long it is.
        4y ago

If a document alone lends credence to their claims, the source code would do wonders. It's not about public contributions, it's about transparency and good faith.

maccard 4y ago

Why do you trust the source code is actually what they deploy to your device, or that what they build isnt linked against extra libraries, maybe even internal library?

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
It's a matter of trust and good faith. You could apply the same dichotomy to actual FOSS programs.
- maccard 4y ago
  I do. Having source code available does6 mean anything if you can't verify the source yourself, or if the source can't be community certified. There's no point in a backend being open source, if nobody can verify what is running there. There's no point in an iOS app being open source if the app is distributed through the app store, as we have no way to verify that it is what it says it is. Meanwhile if I'm running Debian I trust the maintainers have built the source code to distribute to me, similarly with homebrew and chocolatey. > Its a matter of trust and good faith Indeed it is, and you have to trust 1password, and if you don't, it doesn't matter whether there's good faith or not.
  - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    > Indeed it is, and you have to trust 1password, and if you don't, it doesn't matter whether there's good faith or not. Precisely. By not showing their source code, they implicitly state that they don't care about whether you trust them or not when it comes to source code. It is not a meaningless distinction. Bitwarden for example lists being open-source as a plus in security. You may not personally see it that way, but a big part of the industry does.
    - roustem 4y ago
      Intellectual property is important and making everything open source would allow our competitors to easily copy it or at least get an idea how to improve their products. It is hard to seriously compare the features, the security design, and the UX of Bitwarden to 1Password — it is not close. Just a few examples: being able to edit your data while offline, ability have large notes with Markdown formatting (aka "Moby Dick Workout"), support for large datasets (more than 100,000 items). 1Password has been in business for 17 years, longer that any other password manager. It is very difficult to have a long term business model built completely on open source.
      - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
        I never said open source was to be the foundation. In fact, I never talked about open source at all. All I'm referring to is source availability. As I said earlier I'm not going to complain that you won't use a free license such as MIT or AGPL or whatever else. The real issue is just the sources being publicly auditable. Are you worried about your competitors copying your non-copyrightable material? Ideas? While there would still be an issue, I would be a bit less harsh on the policy if at least the clients were source-available. Transparency is security. > It is hard to seriously compare the features, the security design, and the UX of Bitwarden to 1Password — it is not close. How does Bitwarden not come close in security? All I can come up with is the secret key requirement. Is that all? If anything Bitwarden feels more secure because of its transparency. You can see the developers working live, each commit they make.
        roustem 4y ago
        The client source code is the where the most of the IP is. The server code is pretty dumb on it own, all it does is the sync and permissions. One of the issues with Bitwarden encryption is the fact that every field is encrypted separately and that could provide more info to the attacker. For example, you could tell how many URLs in a particular login or if there is note for an item and how long it is.
        4y ago