3 ms·

(sorry about my misleading playful paraphrasing) The program itself might not get information efficiently to do conflict resolution (or not at all): for exampl

by eviks 2y ago

(sorry about my misleading playful paraphrasing) The program itself might not get information efficiently to do conflict resolution (or not at all): for example, you edit a file offline and sync, Dropbox and friends wouldn't be smart enough to just append both of a few bytes worth of data that a password-manager controlled service could since it would be aware of the data structure but would just dump both files, and then both on another conflict etc So I guess it's just not the same type of sync service that you get for free in those many services (also I think it's more than a sub-Mb, you have icons there, but also images of docs and what not) Though maybe this is not an issue as you mention some of the keepass-based apps that go the "app-sync" route instead of manually placed file?

Dylan16807 2y ago
> Though maybe this is not an issue as you mention some of the keepass-based apps that go the "app-sync" route instead of manually placed file? Right, my main concern here is programs that talk directly to the service's API, because that's the easiest to implement in a correct way. Dumb file storage, but without the worry of stale versions appearing. Though most people don't need their vault to be robust against simultaneous offline edits from multiple devices. > (also I think it's more than a sub-Mb, you have icons there, but also images of docs and what not) I have usernames/urls/passwords, some notes, some icons, and some ssh and bitlocker key files. In total it's 159KB, including a bunch of version history and the recycle bin. What kind of documents would I put in a password file? Though some extra megabytes don't really affect my argument much.
- eviks 2y ago
  > Though most people don't need their vault to be robust against simultaneous offline edits from multiple devices. This is one of those very rare cases with potentially huge negative effect to make it into a mandatory feature. > Dumb file storage Which still suffers from inefficient incremental updates. Curious whether those other managers deal with that (do they split your vault into parts)? > What kind of documents would I put in a password file? Whatever documents you want to securely share with others, various scanned docs, so it's not just a few megs, (e.g., Bitwarden offers up to 1G encrypted file attachments) (though don't use this either, mine is just a few megs)
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > This is one of those very rare cases with potentially huge negative effect to make it into a mandatory feature. The only thing you would need to make mandatory is a direct login to any storage service. > Which still suffers from inefficient incremental updates. Curious whether those other managers deal with that (do they split your vault into parts)? If it's a megabyte, who cares? You could have a way to split things or upload an update log, but it's not worth it. If you need big attachments, then keep them outside the core vault file. > Whatever documents you want to securely share with others Sharing is where a dedicated service is useful. But if a feature like that needs a paid service, it should be an optional upgrade.

by eviks 2y ago

Dylan16807 2y ago

> Though maybe this is not an issue as you mention some of the keepass-based apps that go the "app-sync" route instead of manually placed file? Right, my main concern here is programs that talk directly to the service's API, because that's the easiest to implement in a correct way. Dumb file storage, but without the worry of stale versions appearing. Though most people don't need their vault to be robust against simultaneous offline edits from multiple devices. > (also I think it's more than a sub-Mb, you have icons there, but also images of docs and what not) I have usernames/urls/passwords, some notes, some icons, and some ssh and bitlocker key files. In total it's 159KB, including a bunch of version history and the recycle bin. What kind of documents would I put in a password file? Though some extra megabytes don't really affect my argument much.

eviks 2y ago
> Though most people don't need their vault to be robust against simultaneous offline edits from multiple devices. This is one of those very rare cases with potentially huge negative effect to make it into a mandatory feature. > Dumb file storage Which still suffers from inefficient incremental updates. Curious whether those other managers deal with that (do they split your vault into parts)? > What kind of documents would I put in a password file? Whatever documents you want to securely share with others, various scanned docs, so it's not just a few megs, (e.g., Bitwarden offers up to 1G encrypted file attachments) (though don't use this either, mine is just a few megs)
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  > This is one of those very rare cases with potentially huge negative effect to make it into a mandatory feature. The only thing you would need to make mandatory is a direct login to any storage service. > Which still suffers from inefficient incremental updates. Curious whether those other managers deal with that (do they split your vault into parts)? If it's a megabyte, who cares? You could have a way to split things or upload an update log, but it's not worth it. If you need big attachments, then keep them outside the core vault file. > Whatever documents you want to securely share with others Sharing is where a dedicated service is useful. But if a feature like that needs a paid service, it should be an optional upgrade.