41–50 of 75 posts
Self-hosted Bitwarden via Vaultwarden
Like all services I self-host for personal use, it's only accessible via VPN.
I use Secrets ( https://outercorner.com/secrets-mac/ ) which syncs via iCloud. Definitely not perfect, especially if you're not heavily within the Apple ecosystem, but at least it's native and doesn't require a subscription.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've used KeePass for ages and every time another password manager comes up in the headlines it's only ever made me feel more confident about that decision. Zero games, no cloud/other party to be dependent on, and I have total freedom to implement whatever backup/sync methods work best for my situation.
KeePass is not KeePassXC. The former is written in .NET, the latter in C++; numerous open source audits have shown that KeePassXC is far and away more secure than KeePass. Not to mention that cross-platform performance for KeePassXC is superior.
Could you link some?
I mean, that sounds like a major claim, but it doesn't appear to be mentioned on either of their Wikipedia pages, in their FAQ's, nor on some of the top-results from Google.
For example, from [KeePassXC's "FAQ"](https://keepassxc.org/docs/ ):
> Why KeePassXC instead of KeePass?
> KeePass is a very proven and feature-rich password manager and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it. However, it is written in C# and therefore requires Microsoft's .NET platform. On systems other than Windows, you can run KeePass using the Mono runtime libraries, but you won't get the native look and feel which you are used to.
> KeePassXC, on the other hand, is developed in C++ and runs natively on all platforms giving you the best-possible platform integration.
, where they don't appear to claim a security-advantage.
[This security-audit [PDF]](https://keepassxc.org/assets/pdf/KeePassXC-Review-V1-Molotni... ) claimed:
> It is interesting to notice, that the code of KeePassXC is organized in classes cleaner than the code of KeePass in C#. The classes are smaller, the functions are shorter. See e.g. the code to read a database. The reason for this might be that KeePass grew organically into a more complex logical structure and maybe it could enjoy some refactorings. In any case, right now, it is easier to review KeePassXC code for security and to understand it than to do so for KeePass.
, which seemed like a point in KeePassXC's favor.
Back when 1password, 90% sure it was that, had no Linux client I was searching for a solution to store passwords and settled for Enpass. I sync via WebDAV on my Synology NAS and I’m not really worried to lose anything since every synced device has a full copy of the data. Thought about switching to 1password a few months back since we’re using it at work and the client is better but they don’t have an Enpass import.…
pass, the standard unix password manager: https://www.passwordstore.org/
i have very little confidence recommending anything other than bitwarden/vaultwarden or keepassxc
Unix pass [0] [0] https://www.passwordstore.org/
Fwiw, the biggest downside of it is multiple user functionality. It's doable, but you have to import the public gpg key of everybody who needs to access the secrets. Effectively, every secret ends up encrypted with the public key of every user who needs access - not sure how scalable it would be if you have more than a small team of people accessing it this way.
It has first-class support for multiple stores and it's 100% compatible with pass databases.
Bitwarden (optionally with self-hosted Vaultwarden) - Best UX for the FOSS options, syncs all your devices, overall just pretty good.
Website: https://bitwarden.com/
Vaultwarden: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden
Desktop: https://keepassxc.org/
Android: https://www.keepassdx.com/
iOS: https://strongboxsafe.com/
Syncthing: https://syncthing.net/
pass: https://www.passwordstore.org/
gopass: https://www.gopass.pw/