Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1password is considering a self-hosted option to store vaults

1password.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 228 posts

Re: 1password is considering a self-hosted option to store vaults

#21

Post by soziawa »

dijit wrote: post #19
throwaway46294 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard that Linux was the start, Windows is the next one to get the Electron treatment, and Mac is next.

But the linux 1Password program is "electron" in name only; it's actually some kind of Rust program; I'm not 100% sure how it works but it's definitely compiled with cargo.

What does Electron in name only mean? Either electron is included or it isn't. Whether you are using Rust through native bindings or through WebAssembly does not really matter does it?

Re: 1password is considering a self-hosted option to store vaults

#22

Post by xerxesaa »

AnonC wrote: post #13

They made the standalone license almost impossible to find and get, forced a subscription on users, and made the password vault storage online for the subscriptions. Now this self-hosting survey comes as a surprise, and it would be of some relief if/when it’s implemented. I do wonder how the licensing and pricing will be handled though. Bitwarden officially allows self-hosting for the personal use tiers, but it seems…

When looking into KeePassXC, did you specifically look into the KeeShare[1] feature? As long as you have some common place to read/write a file, you can share a subset of your credentials. I agree this is not as easy as hosted solution like Bitwarden, but KeePass was always designed to be a non-hosted solution, so I think this is about as good as they can do.

1 - https://keepassxc.org/docs/KeePassXC_UserGuide.html#_databas...

Re: 1password is considering a self-hosted option to store vaults

#24

Post by sofixa »

shitloadofbooks wrote: post #9

I'm absolutely loving 1Password. The Kubernetes Operator is slick and painless. Syncs with 1Password and stuffs the passwords in standard Kubernetes Secrets, meaning anyone can understand what's going on versus something like say Vault.

> Syncs with 1Password and stuffs the passwords in standard Kubernetes Secrets, meaning anyone can understand what's going on versus something like say Vault.

Vault is much more ( and better ) than just password storage, but isn't that hard to use either.

Kubernetes Secrets aren't great or very secret, so just dumping stuff there from 1Password seems like... Of very limited utility. Having static secrets across multiple clusters and visible from a web UI, that's it?

Re: 1password is considering a self-hosted option to store vaults

#26

Post by mohammedhdotio »

AnonC wrote: post #13

They made the standalone license almost impossible to find and get, forced a subscription on users, and made the password vault storage online for the subscriptions. Now this self-hosting survey comes as a surprise, and it would be of some relief if/when it’s implemented. I do wonder how the licensing and pricing will be handled though. Bitwarden officially allows self-hosting for the personal use tiers, but it seems…

I've been using psono for a few months now https://psono.com/ .

Re: 1password is considering a self-hosted option to store vaults

#27

Post by Macha »

PaulKeeble wrote: post #8

Bitwarden_rs and keypassxc are what dominate in this space at the moment, with bitwarden_rs being the self hosted option directly where keypass is local but usually combined with file synchronisation software like NextCloud. Both are pretty good and get the job done without having to put passwords into another companies care.

Heads up, bitwarden_rs rebranded to vaultwarden a few months back: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/discussions/1642

Re: 1password is considering a self-hosted option to store vaults

#28

Post by fy20 »

gizdan wrote: post #16
AnonC wrote: post #13

They made the standalone license almost impossible to find and get, forced a subscription on users, and made the password vault storage online for the subscriptions. Now this self-hosting survey comes as a surprise, and it would be of some relief if/when it’s implemented. I do wonder how the licensing and pricing will be handled though. Bitwarden officially allows self-hosting for the personal use tiers, but it seems…

You can self-host vaultwarden (formerly bitwarden_rs), which gives full enterprise functionality.

I do this, works perfectly for sharing common passwords among my family (streaming services and utilities mainly).

I moved from 1Password, and my main gripe with Bitwarden are the apps aren't as polished. If it's not too expensive I'd consider switching back (1Password family is $60 per year, so I assume this will be less).

Re: 1password is considering a self-hosted option to store vaults

#29

Post by encryptluks2 »

There are so many good open source alternatives that already offer this they probably no longer have a choice. Which password software would you want to choose, the open source one offering superior privacy or the paid one that only adopts better security when they start losing a lot of customers.

Re: 1password is considering a self-hosted option to store vaults

#30

Post by MrStonedOne »

> To clarify, in 1Password 7 we had two types of vaults: vaults used with the 1Password.com service and what we called "local vaults" or "standalone vaults" which were synced however you decided to, typically Dropbox or iCloud.

> Assuming we're talking about the same feature, then the answer is no, they are not implemented as the new releases do not have support for local/standalone vaults and 1Password 7 will be the last version to support them. The new apps rely on the server to perform a lot of the heavy lifting so we will not be adding support for local vaults as they existed in earlier versions. ...

"We took away a feature that let people not pay us a subscription for no reason and are now maybe gonna think about re-adding it but making it more complex to setup so nobody uses it and we'll get more money."

Can anybody tell me why HIBP still supports them?

Post reply on HN