Live data from Hacker News

Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

github.com

151–160 of 381 posts

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you share how do you set this up?

I store the password vault in dropbox. Done.

I did this a long time ago but eventually ended up with conflicts. Password managers write new entries in a file and easily avoid conflicts whereas agnostic file managers will immediately conflict if sync wasn’t working for a while on a device

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#152

Thank you to Bitwarden for relicensing a thing to Free/Open License! Unfortunately, I no longer recommend Bitwarden for normal people because the built-in password manager in Firefox is too good. But for anyone with more advance needs (or who doesn't trust a password manager built into a web browser, I always recommend Bitwarden because KeepassXC + syncing is way too difficult for normal people.

> because KeepassXC + syncing is way too difficult for normal people I've been debating for ages if this is a hurdle that can be overcome by packaging or even hand-holding support. When I show "normal people" my pass+sync setup they beg me to implement it for them. Once it's running it's near-zero maintenance.

Where did you manage to find "normal people" that begged you to install a password manager for them? I have yet to come across one person who wanted one.

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#153
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But one bad release with a license screw up and nobody is willing to give them an inch? I don't have a lot of context on the issue. Is it clear it was just a packaging bug, rather than a move towards partially proprietary?

Yeah - they've always used an open-core licensing model with like a few features (used only by business users/applications) behind a proprietary license. They just ended up mixing the code in a way such that the (theoretically open-source) app ended up having some utility functions for the business version mixed in. Since the client apps don't use that functionality, they split the repository so that you can build th…

Fair. I didn't know Bitwarden was open-core. In light of this, accidental packaging mixup sounds plausible.

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#154
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There will always be different opinions, but my opinion is that storing your TOTPs in your password manager is at best a reduction in security because you're reducing your 2 factors down to 1 factor. If the password manager gets compromised (even phished! It needn't involve the password manager's servers getting hacked), then you gain nothing by having 2FA enabled. I would strongly advise using something like Aegis o…

This depends on the threat model. Having 2FA in the PW manager defends against someone phishing the password and database leaks on the server side, which are the most common in my threat model. But note that if they can phish your pw, they can probably phish your 2FA as well. It does obviously not protect against the scenario where someone is breaking into your password vault. I tend to enable 2FA but conveniently sa…

Same here.

TOTP is trivially phishable via evil nginx just like your password, and via social engineering.

FIDO2 is not phishable and you have no secret to give out to social engineering attacks.

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#155
post #48

BitWarden has lost the trust. Besides recently there was a blocker bug on iOS and on Reddit I found out it happened earlier as well. They didn't even want to debug it and when I suggested this and asked whether they have any issue logged on Github where I could provide logs they went radio silent. Follow ups went completely unanswered. And yeah before that they had given a solution (because reinstall/re-login nothing…

> BitWarden has lost the trust. Besides... I'm confused what you're responding to. You're making it sound like this was a bad decision and your anecdote was another thing for the pile, but this is a good decision.

Someone else linked the GitHub issue that triggered this change and most of the replies are in the same tone as the comment you're responding to.

Which is all the more ridiculous as this looks like it wasn't really a big license change decision but more of a "forgot to change the license on a component from our internal default". Assuming malice seems like the most boneheaded reaction to this given that there are no other indications Bitwarden was trying to do anything nefarious and the previous license state would have made every single library or tool depending on it non-free.

This is different from criticisms of Mozilla for example which often boil down to "Mozilla positioned itself as privacy-focused but adds a privacy-violating feature you have to opt out of while claiming it's actually fine". Bitwarden never was 100% FLOSS to begin with but introducing downstream license problems is clearly against their own interest. Unless you believe Bitwarden is run by evil idiots who do evil things for no good reason (business or otherwise) whatsoever and then quickly cover their tracks only when called out, "oops" is the only explanation that passes the sniff test.

Here's what someone from Bitwarden said in that issue:

https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611#issuecomme...

I think the submission should be rephrased as "Bitwarden SDK fixed license of sub-component" or something. Which of course sounds less bold and interesting and newsworthy because it really isn't.

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#156
Such a pity they are starting to try to move to proprietary model. I have been using them for years. I thought they were different than other "open-source" companies (e.g. Redis).

What are the alternatives for an open-source cross-platform password manager? Anybody has used Vaultwarden already?

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#157
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox password sync just works. It's one of those things I never think about. Watching friends and family struggle with bespoke, poorly integrated password managers makes me cringe and is one of the big reasons I enjoy the seamless experience of the built-in Firefox password manager.

Firefox sync made the criminal sin of implementing end-to-end encryption, enabling it by default, and being insufficiently clear to people that their passwords are lost forever when they forget the master password. This provides a really terrible UX to "normal" users. I woulnd't recommend that option to anybody who doesn't already know what E2E is and what tradeoffs it has. Google's implementation is a lot better in…

Presumably the passwords themselves have recovery/reset procedures? I can't think of a good reason to add another risk surface to a password manager given that

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#158
post #156

Such a pity they are starting to try to move to proprietary model. I have been using them for years. I thought they were different than other "open-source" companies (e.g. Redis). What are the alternatives for an open-source cross-platform password manager? Anybody has used Vaultwarden already?

We have been working on a open-source, cross-platform alternative called SOS[1]. The source code is on github[2] and includes a self-hostable server for syncing. It is well documented[3] for those that want go build on top of it.

Would love your feedback if you can take it for a spin!

[1] https://saveoursecrets.com/ [2] https://github.com/saveoursecrets/sdk [3] https://docs.rs/sos-sdk/latest/sos_sdk/

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#159
post #110
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox password sync just works. It's one of those things I never think about. Watching friends and family struggle with bespoke, poorly integrated password managers makes me cringe and is one of the big reasons I enjoy the seamless experience of the built-in Firefox password manager.

it just works for websites. it does not "just work" for apps where as the platform ones do or have a chance to work with apps. Kind of hope regulation will force apple/google/ms to allow iterations for 3rd parties to integrate with the os but on the other hand that will open a host of issues

It does on iOS, but I believe the onus is on the app developer to enable the autofill feature in the form, or at least make sure that the app hints to iOS that it can be filled with a password. I'm making that assumption because there are lots of apps which don't trigger the native Apple password manager either (which is a lousy user experience). However, if one works then both do. The UI offers a choice of password manager and Face ID works to unlock it.

I use both. Apple's manager supports OTP generation which is nice, but on desktop websites, Firefox is often more convenient.

Re: Bitwarden SDK relicensed from proprietary to GPLv3

#160

Thank you to Bitwarden for relicensing a thing to Free/Open License! Unfortunately, I no longer recommend Bitwarden for normal people because the built-in password manager in Firefox is too good. But for anyone with more advance needs (or who doesn't trust a password manager built into a web browser, I always recommend Bitwarden because KeepassXC + syncing is way too difficult for normal people.

> the built-in password manager in Firefox is too good

Too good in what way that according to you "normal" people shouldn't be using Bitwarden? Or do you just like the Firefox one but are overselling it a bit too much?

I use Firefox, but I do not trust the Mozilla products. Bitwarden costs me $10/year so I wonder what is so amazing and groundbreaking about Firefox password sync, and does it work across browsers?

Post reply on HN