6 ms·
And people keep asking me why I use a self-hosted, self synced, password manager instead of using one of those super-easy, super-helpful online services to do i
by usrbinbash 3y ago
And people keep asking me why I use a self-hosted, self synced, password manager instead of using one of those super-easy, super-helpful online services to do it for me.
For the same reason why I don't throw my apartment keys into the local train stations safebox.
- realusername 3y agoSame, I use the pass command line + git (since it's integrated with it) and I never had a single problem until now. Additionally I can even use it in scripts. There's no server breach, no web extension exploit, no server errors making me lose me all my passwords, it just works.
- fofoz 3y agoI'm curious. Which one are you using?
- usrbinbash 3y agohttps://www.passwordstore.org/ https://www.passwordstore.org/
- 8organicbits 3y agoI think this works well if you're already invested in GPG for code signing or something and use terminals a lot. It's a little unusual as key management uses asymmetric crypto, so you can add a password without opening your keyring. The passwords are stored in directories and the directory names are the plaintext name of the password (i.e. the site and username). So it doesn't offer privacy. Tampering is possible, you can delete a password without unlocking the keychain by deleting the directory. So it only really protects read access to a password.
- ilyt 3y agoWe use similiar gpg-based one in our Configuration Management infrastructure, works really well. The data files are encrypted with keys of the CM main servers and other admins, GIt has history in case something that should not get removed got removed and if you want you can also force that the data will always be signed with certain keys on server side git hooks if you want to have more accountability than just git logs. With little config even git diff/git log work showing unencrypted (if you have right key) content.
- xjlin0 3y agoMy mom use pen and paper. Pretty secure I'd say.
- DanielHB 3y agowhat do you think about Brave password manager? It seems to fit your bill
- usrbinbash 3y agoNever used it, so can't say anything about it. I prefer `pass`. It certainly fits my bill, and is easy for me to audit myself.
- bmikaili 3y agoIrrelevant. 1password passwords are encrypted with a key only you have. I HIGHLY doubt that you can keep your homeserver more secure than 1password can its servers.
- usrbinbash 3y ago> 1password passwords are encrypted with a key only you have. So is my password store. > I HIGHLY doubt that you can keep your homeserver more secure than 1password can its servers. I also highly doubt that my trousers pockets are harder than the 1.5cm thick hardened-steel-doors of the storage lockers at the local train station, or that my pyhsical constitution is superior to those of the trained security guards they have there. And yet, guess where the keys to my apartment are kept. Hint: Not at the train station.
- SCHiM 3y agoSecurity is not an absolute measure. It's a cost/benefit tradeoff. 1Password may have customers that make it economical for an adversary to spend $$$$ to breach it despite "better" security, whereas your "less" secure home setup may not be worth the effort.
- 8organicbits 3y agoI wouldn't worry about a targeted attack if I was "nobody" and I was self hosting. Likely bitwarden? I'd worry about an attacker scanning and exploiting every instance they can find. Scanning is cheap and provides value in aggregate. I'd recommend only exposing bitwarden on an intranet, or controlling access with a strict firewall, but the setup guide makes no such suggestion. https://bitwarden.com/help/install-on-premise-linux/ https://bitwarden.com/help/install-on-premise-linux/
- usrbinbash 3y agoI thank you for your advice and no, it's not bitwarden. I have losely described my setup elsewhere in this thread.
- 3y ago
- mirzap 3y agoYou may feel safer that way, but it is not. If a dedicated attacker can breach Okta, they can surely breach your self-hosted, self-synced password manager you manage, which you forgot to update on time, or you don't get an update on time. Remember, these organizations fix the issues weeks, sometimes months, before they release the statement. If you use open-source and a critical bug is found, you'll get a patch with a press release, while all other large services fixed that already. For average Jane or Joe, the risk-benefit ratio favors services against self-hosted solutions.
- offices 3y ago>If a dedicated attacker can breach Okta, they can surely breach your self-hosted, self-synced password manager you manage They can't and they won't because these are different threat models with vastly different incentives.
- waihtis 3y agoFalse, because it's not only a matter of technical difficulty, but also one of economics. Very unlikely for your average person to be a victim of a deliberate targeted attack.
- mirzap 3y agoNot targeted, but a random attack and data leak is very likely. Much more likely than if they used the service. That's why 99.999% of people should stick with the services.
- usrbinbash 3y agoA random attack that just happens to breach specifically my home server, that uses custom made service scripts to enable syncing to my devices, isn't reachable from the internet, and is airgapped from my DMZ? Which then somehow manages to exfiltrate and decrypt data that is still encrypted with a public key, the private key to which is not stored on that system, and itself encrypted symetrically? Yeah, that doesn't sound like a "random attack" to me, that sounds like a subplot in a Keanu Reeves Movie...
- leokennis 3y agoI understand your point, but if my password vault was a self hosted piece of software and a self hosted vault file, I'd be nervous every day of losing data.
- trumpeta 3y agoI think the self-hosted bit is just for syncing, as long as you have multiple devices its not likely to lose data even if you don't follow the 3-2-1 backups.
- usrbinbash 3y ago> I'd be nervous every day of losing data And I am, same as I am worried everyday about losing the keys to my apartment. I am speaking as a person who once only got them back by sheer luck (and a young mans honesty), after they fell out of a hole in my trousers pocket. However, I would be even more nervous if the security of these keys were up to someone other than me. For example a random employee of a big company, whos access to the system I have no say in, who I never met, and whos actions I can neither see nor regulate. Bottom line is: I prefer worrying about myself failing, than someone else. Because I can do something about the former.
- leokennis 3y agoI think it depends on the skills and risks involved. I prefer a qualified pilot worrying about keeping the Boeing I'm traveling in airborne, than myself. But indeed, I rather worry myself about my house keys than someone else. For me, keeping extremely sensitive data always available and securely secret forever is more like flying an airplane than not losing my house keys.
- usrbinbash 3y ago> always available and securely secret forever Yeah...about that... https://password-managers.bestreviews.net/faq/which-password-managers-have-been-hacked/ https://password-managers.bestreviews.net/faq/which-password... And while I am certainly not qualified to fly an aircraft, I do feel that I am quite qualified when it comes to software engineering and systems administration. So yeah, this is something I rather do myself.