• net00@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    77
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why would anyone trust any company with their passwords??

    Just use keepass and not bother with BS

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because most people need a cloud solution for synchronization across devices. Unless you’re spinning up your own service like Nextcloud or similar for this, relying on a commercial cloud storage service for storing the file is just as dangerous (perhaps more so, as your attack surface is now across two third party services) as relying on someone like Bitwarden or Lastpass.

      • net00@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a big difference. You trust entities like bitwarden/lastpass/etc to properly encrypt the data, protect your master key, and trust their entire architecture behind the scenes.

        When you encrypt the keepass DB that’s all done by you locally with a open source client. No one knows your master key, and you get a simple encrypted file. You can hand that file to hackers if you want, will be useless without the key.

        I put one of the copies of my keepass on onedrive, and syncs perfectly across all devices.

        Companies can enshiffity at a moments notice.

        • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol, imagine ridiculing users for trusting an FOSS company to handle their password management, and then storing your encrypted password DB in Microsoft’s OneDrive 😆

          • net00@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            1 year ago

            I knew a comment like this was coming, but unless you can show how microsoft can decrypt my kdbx I stand fully by my current setup.

            • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              34
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t think Microsoft can decrypt your DB file, neither do I think Bitwarden can. Encryption happens locally on their open source clients too.

              But I’m not the one disparaging trusting an open source program to securely encrypt passwords, you are.

        • Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          And you are aware that bitwarden knows nothing about the passwords inside the vault and the vault is encrypted in zero knowledge type of fashion?
          AND that Bitwarden does external audits?
          AND if you loose your master password you are out of luck as they can’t support you helping crack the decryption?

        • cley_faye@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except for the part that it’s not a question of trust (being open source), there’s no third-party architecture to trust (it can and should be self-hosted), the data on the server are also encrypted client-side before leaving your device, sure.

          Oh, and you also get proper sync, no risk of desync if two devices gets a change while offline without having to go check your in-house sync solution, easy share between user (still with no trust needed in the server), all working perfectly with good user UI integration for almost every systems.

          Yeah, I wonder why people bother using that, instead of deploying clunky, single-user solution.

    • CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bitwarden can be fully self hosted, I’m doing it. My Bitwarden server doesn’t (and can’t) talk to them at all as it has no way to access the internet. They know nothing about my deployment except that I signed up for a free license key.

    • mac@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I used to use Keepass and sync thing and would consistently run into conflicts between my desktop and mobile entries. Maybe there’s a better way to do it that I’m missing, but that was very annoying

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I use this setup for my personal passwords, using nextcloud as the sync solution. A semi-fix for that was using Keepass2Android (on Android obviously). It integrates with nextcloud directly, keep a local DB of passwords, and would only load the remote one (and merge) on unlock and updates, not keeping it “constantly” sync on every remote change. It works well… most of the time… with only two devices that almost always have connection to the server… and for only one user.

        It’s overly clunky though. It’s the big advantage of “service based” password manager against “single file based” ones. They handle sync. We have plans to move to bitwarden at my workplace, and since the client supports multiple accounts on multiple servers, I’ll probably move to that for personal stuff too. The convenience is just there, without downside.