If you are interested in privacy you are probably interested in password storage … plus I wanted everyone to know about the inevitable future enshitification of this product. Spread the word and replacement recommendations are welcome too.

  • sakuraba@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yeah I’m done with cloud providers for this shit, I’m going all in for Keepass

  • sudoer777@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I still wish there was something where it had better syncing conflict management than KeePass but wouldn’t make you unable to do anything or randomly make your passwords completely inaccessible if you or your server went offline like Bitwarden.

    • jsnfwlr@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      I run vaultwarden at home without access to it from the outside world and once the sync is done I can be offline without issue.

      • sudoer777@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        For me it gives me read-only access most of the time, but sometimes something happens and then it becomes completely inaccessible. Which is why due to being in the middle of a move right now I exported the entire database to my laptop so that if this happens I don’t lose access to all my accounts for the two weeks my server is in transit.

  • Tinkerer@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    How will this affect vaultwarden? I’ve been using it for 5 years and absolutely love it. I’m worried that I’ll need to switch to something else though?

    • tomatolung@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 day ago

      The Article says:

      A Note for Vaultwarden Users

      Whether self-hosting stays viable long-term is the real question worth sitting with.

      Right now it works because Bitwarden’s clients are open source and the server API is public. Vaultwarden implements that API, and the official apps can’t tell the difference. That depends on Bitwarden continuing to publish open source clients and not restricting which servers they’ll talk to — neither of which is guaranteed under new management.

      The brake on the worst case: self-hosting is a listed Enterprise feature that generates real revenue. Killing it upsets paying business customers. That matters.

      The catch: what Bitwarden sells to enterprises is their own official server stack, not Vaultwarden. Vaultwarden exists in a space they’ve tolerated but never endorsed. If the calculus shifts, the tolerance ends without any announcement. Just let the API drift until compatibility breaks on its own.

      I don’t think that’s imminent. But I also thought the free tier commitment was ironclad, and “Always free” isn’t on the page anymore.The real safety net is that Bitwarden’s clients are Apache 2.0 licensed. A fork would need a rebrand to stay clear of the trademark — different name, tweaked UI, same engine — but that’s a speed bump, not a wall. The web vault works through any browser regardless of what happens to the apps, so worst case you’d lose autofill temporarily while a fork caught up. Inconvenient, not catastrophic. Vaultwarden itself is already proof the model works.

      Watch the clients. If they go closed, the community will notice fast, and the fork will follow.

    • godsammitdam@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      It shouldn’t in theory. Worst case is if bitwarden closes source, just fork the latest current open version and use it.

      Ideally, a group, either independent or joining with vaultwarden devs, can build/maintain the frontend for vaultwarden that is bitwarden.

    • Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Not very trust inspiring. There’s a lot of flowery words encircling enshittification.

      It does claim to want to always offer a free tier, but all the new values and buzzwords are funneled towards the paid versions.

  • yuman@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    2 days ago

    if you were looking for an excuse to torpedo this abomination, here it is. hosting this gargantuan stack just for an encrypted csv file? at least the client (electron) gobbles up RAM like it’s free while being bug-compatible with whatever chrome version was current half a year ago.

    sadly, news ain’t great on the other side of the fence - keepassXC dev is all-in on vibeshitting; latest non-polluted version is 2.7.9.; works fine and the stuff they’re working on is pretty far from essential. some unknown folks forked it but who’s to say what their expertise is.

    never thought I’d disable my autoupdate timers but here we are. keep your eyes open.

    • potustheplant@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      What do you mean by “gargantuan” stack? I have a single docker container for vaultwarden that was very easy to set up and it uses less than 100mb of ram. Not sure about the client claims though. I haven’t really looked into it that much. Are you saying all versions of the client and extensions of BitWarden have issues?

      • yuman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        the dev vibecodes; I make a distinction between using the crap as a boilerplate helper and a full-blown agentic “hey computer, do this but do it super-good!”. not only that, they got a super-asshole vibe as they removed claude traces from the repo and then flaunted that it’s so people won’t know what parts were vibeshat. “good luck finding the cutoff point”, I’m paraphrasing here.

        to each their own, but that’s a hard pass for that fork from me.

        • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          1 day ago

          A password manager is literally the poster child for “I would rather it lack features, but be built carefully by an expert.”

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 day ago

        This is my unverified understanding of the situation.

        KeepassXC team added Copilot to their workflow to manage PRs and code some basic (according to KeepassXC) stuff.

    • BrilliantBadger@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah its like those sports headlines where they try vibe you up for some trash talk

      “Player A had a perfectly blunt statement about Player B”

      Only to read & find out they said Player B was great, such drama lol

      All just rage bait everywhere, AI or human that’s the clicks plan

  • DashboTreeFrog@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is really disappointing… I figured the open source nature of Bitwarden would save it from enshittification but as the author says, in the end, the company doesn’t need to keep it open source.

    • willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      That’s the difference between libre software and merely open source software.

      Libre licenses make it hard or impractical to close the source at a later date.

      Open source licenses are much more permissive and allow any entity to produce a closed source derivation at any time.

      Libre licenses are all about strategically protecting the software commons from privatization.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      As soon as VC money comes in, the founders cash out and the enshittification begins as the VC will be expecting returns on their money.

  • Jul (they/she)@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 days ago

    Vaultwarden will survive. Since the client is open source, once they close the API and break compatibility of the clients with Vaultwarden, the old version of the app can simply be forked and rebranded. I also do hope that the KeyGuard app will continue to support vaultwarden as well since if bitwarden closes the API and makes a breaking change, as is likely to happen, it will break KeyGuard as well, but it will still work with VaultWarden for some time.

    The real issue is that many people who are using Bitwarden aren’t savvy enough to host Vaultwarden in a secure way. Many people are careless with things like secret keys and such and dont know how to properly secure a web facing app or a VPN into their local network. But anyone who self hosts should result learn those things anyway. This one just happens to be a particularly high risk since it contains all of your passwords for everything else.

    • twoBrokenThumbs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is why despite me self hosting some things I don’t rely on vaultwarden. I’m a flawed person and my family has no idea about anything. I don’t need to stretch my imagination very far to think of a handful of reasons why it would fail my situation. I’ll gladly pay for a password manager to not have to deal with that.

      • TheMadCodger@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        Same! I self host a number of things, but I just didn’t trust myself with something as important as this. I had been paying for bitwarden even though the free plan was sufficient, just to show support. But obviously not if they go this route. I will also gladly pay for a password manager to not have to deal with that.

        • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s where I was for years until I got that surprise $80CAD credit card charge a few weeks ago. Now I have 11 months to either go with someone else or figure out a self-hosted solution I can trust. It will need several layers of backups the family can actually access in an emergency.

    • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      We really need a VaultWarden paid service, if there isn’t anything against doing so in the license.

      I don’t know why the server needs any specialized software at all though. In the end, if it’s just some password history, why not just have a client that allows generic storage backends and you can upload to Filen or S3 or whatever else you use?

      • Jul (they/she)@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        It uses a database and it’s totally possible to use SQLite as the database and sync that elsewhere. You could then find or make a small client that just accesses that db directly rather than a web service, I suppose. Though there are already several apps out there that store passwords locally and their data files can be synced, if that’s what you want.

        But if you’re doing that then you may not be using this in the most common way or may not understand the risk involved. This is likely to have every one of your logins, not just a single login that may or may not be used on other sites, but the specific username and password and which site it’s associated with. On addition to access to those accounts, this links all of your accounts to a single identity which companies spend billions to do with advertising IDs, cookies, embedded scripts, and lots of other, usually shady, practices. This is a gold mine, though usually only for one or a few users, so generally not a major target unless you’re being targeted personally for some reason. So, even if they don’t get the passwords, they’ve now linked every account you have on every site to your identity.

        If you are allowing the database to be relatively easily obtained by syncing it to a central location accessible over the internet, a bad actor who gets it can even take their time brute forcing any encryption that may be present in the database, but if you don’t keep encryption keys only on your local device because you want to be able to use it elsewhere, then you probably stored the keys along with the db and they dont even have to bother with that, or if it uses password based encryption, they just have to guess or brute-force a single password.

        If it’s behind a properly secured web service, then even if they find an exploit in the server software, they likely have to do many queries over time to get much data and the server can mitigate that risk and/or alert the owner about new logins and such. A database in the hands of the bad actor can’t complain about too many attempts to access it or notify anyone that it’s been copied.

        So, IMHO, it’s a bad idea to use synced local password managers unless you have a very robustly secure way of storing the database and the encryption keys.

        • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Yeah I was imagining a system more like Password Store - use Git to version control secrets which are encrypted using some form of asymmetric encryption.

          You store the private key somewhere you control, like a USB drive or something. Same as Bitwarden’s master password.

    • Dultas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Good to know KeyGuard is an alternative. My main worry was with the extension no longer being compatible as, like you said, I doubt they’ll continue to keep the client and API open.

      • Jul (they/she)@piefed.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Yeah, fortunately Vaultwarden has enough users that probably someone will eventually create an extension for it. And in the mean time you just have to make sure to use an old version of the existing extension until that happens. It’s not like the changes in Bitwarden will affect Vaultwarden directly. The old client versions will still work until Vaultwarden changes something.

    • Bluewing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’ve been using it for years. But I have been waiting for this day to come. Because it always comes at some point without fail.

    • youmaynotknow@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      You still have some time to decide which route to go. If you’re on the free version, stay there, but start looking for alternatives.

      Proton Pass is an option. KeePass with Syncthing works great, but it is a dramatically different and more involved workflow.

      I am using both, and deleted my Bitwarden account yesterday the moment I heard about this.

      Also, I can’t suggest enough that you export all your credentials to an encrypted json file every now and then, and store it on an offline storage device. This is important.

    • (des)mosthenes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      thanks for all the suggestions - i’ve since moved to proton pass, not sure if I want to self host this aspect of my security stack - but will be watching closely

    • n1ckn4m3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s a very easy migration from Bitwarden to a self-hosted and OSS Vaultwarden, if you have means to self-host. Appreciably, many don’t want to self-host their own apps and I’m not defending Bitwarden’s enshittification at all. It comes for all tech at some point :(

      • Dultas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I would say that Vaultwarden might not be the best introduction to self hosting given the critical nature and sensitivity of the data. And if you do maybe block the admin page from external sources.

      • kazerniel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It comes for all tech at some point :(

        Not sure if all tech, but definitely the ones that just want to grow grow grow. A counterexample (so far) is the Obsidian team.