You must log in or # to comment.
keepass and syncthing are free.
Wish they handled it better, but I knew about this a while ago, and the price is more than reasonable.
A decade without a price hike is extremely generous, especially at how cheap their plan was.
They are a FOSS company that makes a fantastic product I’ve been happy with for years, I’ll gladly pay less than $2 a month to support them. Their server code is licensed with the AGPL, the strongest copyleft license there is, which gives me a lot of confidence.
Worse case scenario, they enshitify down the road, we are protected via the open source implementations. We’ve seen this many times in the past, Red Hat > Alma & Rocky Linux, Citrix Xen Server > XCP-ng, Terraform > Open Tofu.
Pay for your open source software, folks 💖
Paying for good software should be normalized again. One way or the other you’ll always pay. If you don’t pay with your money, you pay with your data.
Bitwarden’s Premium version now costs $20 per year,
This is what you’re up in arms about? $1.50 a month?
It’s not about the price itself. It’s about the lack of transparency. Not being open with a 100% increase is not a good look.
I kept procrastinating on self hosting it, but now i will do it tonight and migrate to my own instance.
Problem solved.
Lawl I pay for the yearly thing and I’ve never used any paid features, I just wanted to support them. I’m okay with the price increase, but it definitely would have been nice to have an announcement maybe in December or spending the they’re planning that. I wonder if I’m grandfathered into the same price I’ve been paying? Ehhh too lazy to find out. I’ll pay 20, but yah some transparency or forewarning would have been nice for a lot of peeps.
20$/year is still cheap compared to other password managers, but yeah, the lack of transparency is worrying.
Keepass is free?
So is BitWarden if you self-hosted. The price increase is for a hosted service which Keepass does not provide.
Thing is, a large percentage of internet-connected users might have two or more devices. The simplicity offered by a cloud (be it hosted or selfhosted) password manager is a huge benefit.
And unless you’re already running a syncthing-like service for something else, setting it up just for a password manager when other services provide it out of the box, is not worth the hassle usually.
IMO Keepass and Bitwarden aren’t exactly the same, as the latter has cross-device sync built-in.
I use one for work and the other for personal. They are both great, with slightly different convenience/security tradeoffs imo. Big fan of both, don’t know why it has to be one or the other for an OSS credentials manager
Edit: part of what you’re paying for with BW is first-class native apps
Big fan of both, don’t know why it has to be one or the other for an OSS credentials manager
20 bucks are kind of a reason tho?
Can always self-host.
I can’t think of a reason to choose Keepass over Vaultwarden.
(Edit - I misread as Bitwarden and went off on the wrong tangent. Vaultwarden is not centralized, and it’s FOSS - my bad.)
The person you’re replying to already gave you one: it’s free.Second: its not a prime target for attack like centralized, hosted webservices are. See: LastPass being cracked and people’s login data stolen… Twice.Yes, it is cryptographically superior to LastPass, and attempts to design around their flaws - but the threat still exists because its a very tasty target on the open internet for cybercrime.My little Keepass DB synched over personal VPN by Syncthing? Much harder to find a vector for attack. But it does require more moving parts and maintenance.Each have their pros and cons.I think you misread. Lastweakness was talking about Vaultwarden which is a 100% FOSS reimplementation of bitwarden that you self host.
Vaultwarden is open source: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden
Get yourself a mini pc or old laptop and control your own future: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden
Would love to selfhost. However, I have no trust in my skills to secure my device in the same manner as a provider, and I do not wish my database to be compromised.
Would you be okay with synchronizing only when you’re on your own Wi-Fi network? If that’s the case, you don’t have to try exposing anything to the Internet.
You can also purchase a server online to install it on, but you’re going to get saddled with some kind of monthly fee there.
I never get this excuse except for ignorance (not being mean to you)—you can export your entire db as a text file then encrypt it if you wanted. Also, if your server goes offline its offline first on all devices
I mean that I don’t have the necessary knowledge to make sure no one can get into my network and server, and having my entire life thus possibly vulnerable is too risky. Heck, I can’t even get Caddy to work properly.
TIL theres a paid version of Bitwarden.
Out of curiosity, what services do you use for sharing?
I use NextCloud for informal shares as its GUI is very similar Microsoft or Google’s -Drive and is easily adoptable. I also host a private pastebin instance for code or guides I think may be helpful, and Matrix for personal stuff. But I do like how Bitwarden/Vaultwarden’s share works – it feels more secure, like WeTransfer. It still has its applications. And Vaultwarden file share is free, size limit is adjustable in server config, and is not limited to what the Bitwarden clients say!
Yeah, not handled well. They’re doing slimy corpo bullshit.
On the other hand, I like that they’re open source and don’t block stuff like vaultwarden.
I hope they can take the extra money and make the product better. Cuz I definitely don’t love Bitwarden, but it’s a better alternative than 1Password.
On the other hand, I like that they’re open source and don’t block stuff like vaultwarden.
YET
Quite easy to fork the client.
Getting it to install through the various stores? Probably not.
While the increase is not a huge deal because the total is still cheaper than alternatives, the thing that irks me is how they did indeed just announce it via a blog post titled “Bitwarden launches enhanced premium plan: Complete online security for everyone”. This reads like there’s going to be free, premium and premium+ at best, and “we are just adding more stuff to the premium” at worst, not implying a price bump, at least to me. I did not get my renewal email yet, so can’t confirm whether or not they don’t even mention the annual price, but rather just the monthly one. Another thing that kind of bothers me is that they list “Vault health alerts” as a new thing, while it’s always been there. While “Phishing blocker” just seems like a feature outside of the scope of a password manager.
All in all, double the price in exchange for x5 more storage and x2 more hardware keys is fine to me, but I hope they improve their communication and actually properly inform users of upcoming pricing changes.
I had my renewal email come through today. Here is what is says: Your Bitwarden Premium subscription renews in 15 days. The price is updating to $1.65/month, billed annually. As an existing Bitwarden customer, you will receive a one-time 25% loyalty discount for this year’s renewal. This renewal will now be billed annually at $14.85 + tax.
Can someone please help me understand why you would want to have your passwords in the cloud? I’ve been using Keepass for about the past 15 years. I always just sync the db between computers/mobiles. Its never been an issue. Is having it in the cloud really that big of an advantage?
Not interested in selfhosting and risk a data breach.
It’s imple: Who is better equipped to combat a hack? You or Bitwarden?Definitely me.
there’s also the fact that hackers probably don’t know I’m hosting it. Where as bitwarden hosted makes for a very very juicy target
False sense of security.
The moment to fuck up certificate issuing and don’t use a wildcard certificate, the subdomain is public and will be probed to hell and back. And due to regex, probably by bots specialized to probe password vaults.
Wish you best of luck and security.
But I’ll stay here :)You do realize that a keepass db is simply an encrypted file, right? Its not a web server.
there’s also the fact that hackers probably don’t know I’m hosting it. Where as bitwarden hosted makes for a very very juicy target
Please point me to where keepass is mentioned
Besides that:
Yes, keepass is only an encrypted database-container but that comes with it’s own downsides.
Syncthing can manage the syncing with stun-servers circumventing the port forwarding issue but it’s also a burden to manage it.Btw a geuine question:
How does keepass manage simultanious access by two devices? Is the database write-locked during an editing action?
And how does it combat silent corruption?I’ve been using Keepass for about the past 15 years.
When you jump into the middle of a conversation, this is what happens. In fact, I already answered your question. Even though you seem to be acting in bad faith, and you’re trying to get a “gotcha” out of me… I’ll elaborate a little
I use a Nextcloud Server (there are other network sync tools as well). I have the Keepass file on the server which syncs with my remote devices. If I make changes to the database, it syncs with the cloud server which pushes the changes to the other devices. I have NEVER had a situation where I needed to make changes to the databases on two or more devices in parallel, nor can I think of a use case. My guess is that in such a situation, whichever file was saved last would be the one last saved by Nextcloud (overwriting the other edit). So your “gotcha” is valid but rare. The other option is to use the web app for Keepass in Nextcloud (not sure if it’s still being developed though, it’s been a long time since I used that).
Anyway, the point of my question was to understand why people use a cloud service for this when it can be easily done (and be safer) than relying on a 3rd party cloud. From what I can tell it’s “convenience”.
Natural disaster -> no longer can access everything you have online, including bank and insurance accounts, at precisely the time you most don’t want to deal with that.
Natural disaster -> no longer can access everything you have online
Meant as a negative to cloud vaults?
In that case: Bitwarden (as an example) can work offline and records can be exported from it.
It’s convenient, but not much moreso than keeping the encrypted file in your google drive or whatever and pulling it down once in a while.
I’ve tried storing encrypted blobs including a keepass database on Google drive and I always end up with hundreds of conflict copies
Put the keepass database in a folder and use syncthing to sync that folder.
I just run syncthing on every device that needs my password and they all always have an up to date copy of the database.
Lol for years I have been wanting to switch from KeePass to Bitwarden. Mainly cause the UX/UI felt nice to me.
My initial hesitance was that I didn’t love the idea of my passwords being on someone else’s servers. But I found out about Vaultwarden. So I kept my eye on it’s development and longevity. Now that it’s well established, I’d say I trust it now. Next I figured out a way to selfhost without exposing Vaultwarden to the public. Everything seems to be lined up for me to switch.
A few months ago, I decided it was time. After moving my passwords over and getting a flow working, I went to sort by most recent… Oh wait. You can’t sort by date. You can’t sort lol I sat with this for a few hours and reverted back to my trusted and working KeePass flow.
EDIT: This is one of the most voted feature requests. Also, it’s just table stakes! It’s crazy they don’t have this feature 😂
https://community.bitwarden.com/t/sorting-options-by-date-of-modification-addition-last-use-etc/2484
Why do you need to sort at all? Just search for your password… what am I missing?
You can’t fathom why someone would want to… sort a list…?
I don’t know how to answer this. I think you’re serious, but I can’t tell. Want to read that community post I linked where over 600+ people voted for the sorting ability?
Not really. The search bar at the top will filter for anything you’re looking for. Sorting is redundant.
