• Revan343
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bitwarden, or vaultwarden if you want to self-host it

    • Haha@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m interested in vaultwarden, what do you think about self hosting it?

      • Revan343
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve never tried it, but from what I’ve read it isn’t too difficult; it is something I’d like to eventually get set up. I expect you’d want either a static IP address or a dynamic DNS service to access it remotely.

        You can also self-host the main bitwarden implementation, vaultwarden is just generally preferred because it’s much lighter-weight, mostly because it’s written in Rust instead of Typescript

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s super easy to self host (assuming you’re familiar with docker), doesn’t take too much server resource, and will give you access to features normally gated behind bitwarden subscriptions. Way better then the official self-hosted version. The main disadvantage is while it’s open source, the code hasn’t been audited yet, which might be a deal breaker for people obsessed with security.

        • Haha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I read it’s a bit double edged but would anyone ever want to audit a open source software that can Take over a paying one?… might just take the jump.

          • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s actually starting to get common for open source password manager to get audit, often free of charge by a security company. Whether the project actually compete with a commercial project doesn’t seem to matter because the goal is to assess security.

            KeePassXC was recently audited for example: https://keepassxc.org/blog/2023-04-15-audit-report/

            1Password, another popular opensource password manager, has also been audited: https://support.1password.com/security-assessments/

            Bitwarden (including the selfhosted component) has also been audited: https://bitwarden.com/help/is-bitwarden-audited/

            So it’s not really strange for people expressing interest to get vaultwarden audited.

              • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                KeePassXC doesn’t do any cloud syncing stuff. If you want your vault to be available on multiple devices, it’s up to you how to achieve that (e.g. by putting the vault database file inside dropbox/gdrive/nextcloud, etc). Some people prefer this approach because they don’t trust centralized vault services.

                1Password and BitWarden are competitors and offer largely similar services (e.g. syncing your vault across all devices you own). BitWarden paid service is cheaper though, so it’s more popular. Note that bitwarden free account is already good enough, the paid service offers some convenient features which actually pretty nice to have though, such as storing TOTP data in your vault.

                VaultWarden is an alternative implementation of bitwarden server. If you’re into self-hosting and want to host bitwarden vault on your own server, you can install it in your own server. It implements almost all bitwarden features, even those that only available in the highest subscription tier.