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

Bitwarden raises $100M

bitwarden.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 522 posts

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#111

Post by ctvo »

scarface74 wrote: post #88
phpisthebest wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the number of businesses out there doing it I would venture to guess you are wrong. Also Bitwarden and other password managers are not just about storing the passwords. For example on a personal level I use bitwarden family to manage my Parents passwords and to assist them with issue on various service, this gives me away to setup accounts and securely share passwords with them for the services, and vice versa…

Why are large businesses “sharing passwords” between users? What happens when one user leaves? Isn’t sharing a password in a business context like “Things you shouldn’t do” 101?

> Why are large businesses “sharing passwords” between users? What happens when one user leaves?

Because not all products businesses use have fine grain authentication and authorization. For example, their registar for their domain names. And differing employees need access to it at different times.

> Isn’t sharing a password in a business context like “Things you shouldn’t do” 101?

What do you think Bitwarden does? It's fine grain authorization over shared resources (passwords) that control who can access them. You categorize, create roles, and give those roles access to specific passwords. When an employee leaves, you rotate the password. Every access is recorded for auditing. It solves a real business problem.

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#112

Post by xani_ »

yewenjie wrote: post #20

> The Bitwarden business model will not change Bitwarden remains committed to A fully featured free version, forever An open source architecture The ability to self-host Advanced business features This is great!

"Fully featured" does not mean "all features"

"Open source architecture" doesn't mean all the parts you need to self host it is open.

Their "ability to self-host" already includes having to buy a license to even get 2FA

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#113

Post by xani_ »

indigochill wrote: post #80
jacooper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only possible if Bitwarden requires a CLA, do they require a CLA for commits/PRs?

Isn't a CLA just a standard CYA move from more established open source projects? I had to sign one to contribute to Django as well and I don't see them "pulling a MongoDB" any time soon. My assumption is this is so that they're legally protected from contributors revoking the right to use their contribution at some later point or other obnoxious legal shenanigans.

Linux Kernel doesn't require attributing the code to the linux kernel for example

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#114

Post by antcas »

gundamdoubleO wrote: post #64
cmeacham98 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did I have to scroll this far down to find someone who's actually read the post? Everybody seems to think the money is purely for expanding the password manager, while in the post they call out adjacent markets they want to expand to. I'm cautiously optimistic that this could mean we won't see the end of Bitwarden, as those are areas where companies will pay big money.

>How did I have to scroll this far down to find someone who's actually read the post? Welcome to Hacker News

Welcome to the internet at large.

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#115

Post by xani_ »

chrismorgan wrote: post #74
yewenjie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't it just a clone of the Bitwarden server without any extra feature?

I’ve been using Vaultwarden for just myself for at least a couple of years now, and it’s at 32MB of disk space ( That’s feature. (As a matter of fact, it’s grown quite a bit since I started using it; it used to be under 20MB of disk space and 10–15MB of RSS.)

Also running on PostgreSQL, not having to spin MSSQL instance

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#116

Post by timwaagh »

Happy user here. Congratulations to the company. Would be cool if they invested some into autofill functionality for their Android app because that doesn't seem to work as it should.

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#117

Post by xani_ »

aborsy wrote: post #4

I would never have someone else manage my passwords for me. You have to trust the server. It could serve the user with malicious JS code or an app update at any time. You can self host it though.

Most of them do it by encrypting the passwords with your master password so techncially you only have to trust the client on that one. But yeah, browser can get hacked, malicious client code can be pushed, lastly client bugs

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#118

Post by Vaslo »

kinnth wrote: post #97

Bitwarden replaced lastpass for me and really i'd never go back. My only gripe is filling in card details, there is never a floating icon to click to do it automatically, you need to go to the menu bar and select the card. Apart from that all perfect!

Same - between the great product, open source, and vault warden for self hosting, I have no issues giving them 10 bucks a year for them to host for me.

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#119

Post by JshWright »

411111111111111 wrote: post #84
jlokier wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would a password manager need so much money? The money isn't for the password manager particularly. In the article they list a number of new things they want to develop. I think there will come a point when most mainstream web services will require "passwordless" authentication, which means users will have to register with one of a few commercial passwordless providers. Think "login to service X with Google/Git…

Isn't there already a standard for that: webauthn ? Hasn't really caught on, despite being several years in the making already

Sure, a standard exists, but that by itself isn't a great user experience. If you actually try to use something like a YubiKey you end up having to register multiple keys with each site to deal with lost key (assuming the site allows that in the first place). The you have to remember which keys correspond to which sites, and remember to get your backup key out each time you sign up somewhere new , etc.

Google, Apple, etc are building on WebAuthN in order to allow a trusted third party to "sync" the keys, solving the major usability hurdle for most people (as with all things security related, there's an obvious tradeoff in injecting a trusted third party, but for the vast majority of people that tradeoff still results in a significant net risk reduction). I assume Bitwarden is angling to build out their own version of something in this space.

https://www.imperialviolet.org/2022/07/04/passkeys.html

Re: Bitwarden raises $100M

#120

Post by Svoka »

So many people here praising Bitwarden. I were using multiple password managers, but stuck with 1Password. Their last update is atrocious. I tried switching to Bitwarden and forced myself to live with it for 3 months. I gave up when it lost generated password. Apparently it is quite common with Bitwarden and bad connections, which I have a lot travelling to remote locations where I actually need to generate passwords.

Both app and server need so much polish. Like this is literally like touching something from 00s and everyone seems to be content with it.

I truly hope Bitwarden would put money to better their app and technology, focusing on User Experience, not on feature checklist.

Post reply on HN