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

Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–116 of 116 posts

Re: Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#111

Post by NoahKAndrews »

Caligatio wrote: post #75
sramam wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another benefit is that this flips all of the "paid" feature flags to true. If you self-host Bitwarden's official setup you still have to pay a subscription to use paid features. As a developer and cheapskate user myself, I understand the appeal of this. As a product builder, I struggle with what this means to build a business upon an open core model.

I would have more of a problem with this if it was a simple fork with a few variables modified to enable features rather than a complete rewrite with a compatible API. None of the paid features are technological breakthroughs (e.g. one just checks HIBP to see if passwords have been leaked) so, imo, it's really the re-implementor that did all the work. I do feel a little bad using the client applications for free give…

Why not pay for an inexpensive subscription to the hosted version, and just not use it?

Re: Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#112

Post by josephcsible »

sramam wrote: post #48
matthew-wegner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a few years since I looked at the official server setup (I immediately switched to bitwarden_rs, this project), so maybe this isn't as true today: Mostly it's that the official setup is the same thing that runs their free/paid hosted service. By design, it is quite split apart into separate areas, presumably so they can scale independently of each other: https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/SETUP…

> Another benefit is that this flips all of the "paid" feature flags to true. If you self-host Bitwarden's official setup you still have to pay a subscription to use paid features. As a developer and cheapskate user myself, I understand the appeal of this. As a product builder, I struggle with what this means to build a business upon an open core model.

Open core is bad, so things that make it more difficult to be successful with it are good.

Re: Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#113

Post by sramam »

josephcsible wrote: post #112
sramam wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another benefit is that this flips all of the "paid" feature flags to true. If you self-host Bitwarden's official setup you still have to pay a subscription to use paid features. As a developer and cheapskate user myself, I understand the appeal of this. As a product builder, I struggle with what this means to build a business upon an open core model.

Open core is bad, so things that make it more difficult to be successful with it are good.

Interesting perspective. Could you explain why and for whom it's bad? I can't completely tell from your comment - but do you tend open-source or closed-source as an alternative?

Re: Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#114

Post by josephcsible »

sramam wrote: post #113
josephcsible wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open core is bad, so things that make it more difficult to be successful with it are good.

Interesting perspective. Could you explain why and for whom it's bad? I can't completely tell from your comment - but do you tend open-source or closed-source as an alternative?

It's bad because profits off of open source's good name without actually being open source.

Re: Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#115

Post by fri_sch »

jaywalk wrote: post #69
fri_sch wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of that said Bitwarden is a fantastic product and I recommend that over every other server-based password manager out there. Do you want to share what makes you think Bitwarden is superior to other selfhosted, open-source solutions (e. g. Passbolt, Passwork, Psono)?

For me, it's that you don't have to self-host it if you don't want to. You can seamlessly switch between self- and cloud-hosted.

All three of the alternative solutions I mentioned above have cloud/SaaS versions as alternative to the selfhosted tiers.

Re: Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#116

Post by fri_sch »

seized wrote: post #68
fri_sch wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of that said Bitwarden is a fantastic product and I recommend that over every other server-based password manager out there. Do you want to share what makes you think Bitwarden is superior to other selfhosted, open-source solutions (e. g. Passbolt, Passwork, Psono)?

So far, Bitwarden has an Android app (two of those didn't), has been security audited (I didn't see anything for those other ones), and the biggest thing is Bitwarden has a much better pricing structure around non business users. It has a free tier and plans for families/non business users, as well as business use. Those others had nothing comparable that I could see except for a limited free tier. Feature wise (igno…

I admit Bitwarden is probably the most advanced, but the alternatives I named above (Psono, Passbolt, Passwork) seem not that far behind and some of your research seems a bit superficial.

> Bitwarden has an Android app (two of those didn't)

That's just wrong. All three of the alternatives I mentioned have an Android app. I haven't used any of them, though.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.psono.pson...

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.passwork.p...

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.passbolt.m...

> has been security audited (I didn't see anything for those other ones)

A quick search turns up at least some auditing activity:

Passbolt: https://www.passbolt.com/incidents

Psono: https://doc.psono.com/admin/asvs/overview.html (self-audit)

Looking more closely at Passwork, they claim to have open/auditable source code, but I can't find any public code. So they are out of the game anyway.

> Bitwarden has a much better pricing structure around non business users. It has a free tier and plans for families/non business users, as well as business use. Those others had nothing comparable that I could see except for a limited free tier.

Psono's full-featured enterprise version is free for anyone with up to 10 users. I don't see any such generous offer at Bitwarden or elsewhere.

And both, Psono and Passbolt offer unlimited business tiers for only 3€ per user per month which seems to be in the range of what Bitwarden costs. I don't really see your argument for the pricing.

Post reply on HN