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

I Do Not Recommend Bitwarden

xn--gckvb8fzb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: I Do Not Recommend Bitwarden

#11

Post by prism56 »

muppetman wrote: post #10
princevegeta89 wrote: post #3

Well, I know Bitwarden is pretty demanding and also not so straightforward to do self-hosting. But we have Vaultwarden which is ridiculously easy to deploy and also very lightweight while being immensely popular; has never had any major security incidents so far - and it has thousands of eyes on it for every single commit. I've been hosting this for three years now and I have never had a single problem with it. alway…

You could have just posted "I didn't read the article" instead of this comment. It specifically addresses vaultwarden quite a number of times.

Not the original commenter. Just thought I would comment here. I'd be super interested in reading more information in why Bitwarden Lite is inadequate vs vaultwarden.

Re: I Do Not Recommend Bitwarden

#12

Post by muppetman »

pretzellogician wrote: post #5

I'm a free Bitwarden user, I don't plan to self-host stuff, and... honestly I have no idea what this person is going on about. And "Aside from the aforementioned technical details, Bitwarden is (and has always been) one of the subjectively worst applications on my phones and my desktop in terms of user interface. " Really!!? How many apps has this person used?

I love Bitwarden and use it every day, but I pretty much also agree with his post. I have Bitwarden for personal stuff and 1password for my, and the 1password experience is night and day better. It's just so good, it always works. Bitwarden sometimes (especially on Android) will just not autofill. On my PC sometimes it won't recognise the domain correctly even though I've got an entry set for "base domain" etc. I am ALWAYS fighting with it to get my passwords out. Look at the Bitwarden Reddit its full of similar complaints.

Of course the price between 1pass and Bitwarden reflects why 1pass is so much better. And you don't really realise how clunky BitWarden is if it's all you use, until you also have to use some other password manager.

Re: I Do Not Recommend Bitwarden

#13

Post by muppetman »

prism56 wrote: post #7

I don't self host Bitwarden so 90% of this doesn't really apply. I did however want to comment on the tab changing it's favicon and title everytime you change to another tab. Quite a cool "advertising" method for what javascript can do.

Yea that threw me too. Very clever.

Re: I Do Not Recommend Bitwarden

#15

Post by muppetman »

kotaKat wrote: post #4

Ahahahah, I am enjoying the little turn-off-your-Javascript warning that comes back when you click on a link in a new tab from the page to something linked in the article. My tab's title: "Ask HN: How could I safely contact drug cartels?"

I just saw a tab with a Google search for "Zuckerberg nudes" lololol

Re: I Do Not Recommend Bitwarden

#17

Post by mattbee »

pretzellogician wrote: post #5

I'm a free Bitwarden user, I don't plan to self-host stuff, and... honestly I have no idea what this person is going on about. And "Aside from the aforementioned technical details, Bitwarden is (and has always been) one of the subjectively worst applications on my phones and my desktop in terms of user interface. " Really!!? How many apps has this person used?

Er yeah same. I can believe it's a PITA to self-host because why would they care to make it easy. It's open source, good luck.

$10/year seems pretty fair to avoid all that.

The clients are fine, could be smoother, but I've internalised the quirks by now.

Re: I Do Not Recommend Bitwarden

#19

Post by SamDc73 »

Bitwarden have in my opinion is one of the BEST business models a user can ask for.

It's open-source, and I can self-host (100% free) and the free version is really, really good too, and then a premium version is $20/year which is very reasonably priced.

Also for cloud hosted password manager, you're always going to have attacks no matter what, but at least they are transparent about it .. (unlike say LastPass, Norton LifeLock, Keeper and possibly others). For self-hosting it might be better security, solely because no one cares to attack it, but it's not going to be more secure form engineering best practices POV (but again I might be wrong .. I'm not a security engineer of any kind)

Re: I Do Not Recommend Bitwarden

#20

Post by baal80spam »

jrm4 wrote: post #8

Probably my biggest tech hill-i'll-die-on is: Password management involving a 3rd party is dumb and should never ever have been a thing. Before two parties had the secret (or something related to it) and now three parties have it and that's objectively worse -- even taking into account "the lazy user" or whatever. I know we're past that in a lot of places for a lot of people, but nope, my dad and his printed out shee…

KeePass is a great middle-ground, which I've been using for the last decade (at least). Storing the vault is on you, it just makes it easy to keep stuff organised.
Post reply on HN