161–170 of 381 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. You can add whatever passwords. It asks you for a URL but you can put anything in.
> It asks you for a URL but you can put anything in. Well, that’s kind of the problem isn’t it? Yes, you can put bogus URLs, but it’s far from a great user experience
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately, I no longer recommend Bitwarden for normal people because the built-in password manager in Firefox is too good Interesting, I've always felt that browser-based password managers provided remarkably little value for most people. Using them on mobile is tricky and platform dependent, it's easy to have local-only, non-synced data and then lose it, and being multi-device is trickier, especially in a work…
All serious browser vendors offer sync to logged in users. That’s multi-device, cross platform and pretty foolproof. I still prefer Bitwarden because of self-hosting and integrating nicely with the iOS ecosystem. But there’s not much wrong with the browser approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Unfortunately, I no longer recommend Bitwarden for normal people because the built-in password manager in Firefox is too good Interesting, I've always felt that browser-based password managers provided remarkably little value for most people. Using them on mobile is tricky and platform dependent, it's easy to have local-only, non-synced data and then lose it, and being multi-device is trickier, especially in a work…
> people generally understand installing an app on each device they own and that app doing it for them. an app like Firefox or Chrome, perhaps?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The LastPass fuckery was long and frankly egregious. Though I don't understand why this git commit is what's linked here. I'd rather hear the discussions on it. https://github.com/bitwarden/clients/issues/11611
After reading through the issue thread and the final reply by Bitwarden, I think the only context this provides is that the headline should rather be something like "Bitwarden SDK fixes dependency licensing issue". The opening comment and the final reply are the only valuable contributions in that issue. Everything in between is random people jumping in to feign outrage or telling people to use Vaultwarden (which btw…
It looks to me like people expressed genuine concerns about being lied to by a company, one they'd trusted with their passwords no less. Calling it "feigned outrage" is a bit rude.
Not entirely there yet ... Some parts of have been re-licensed, some have been licensed under the old non-free software SDK license. E.g, https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk-internal/commit/db648d7ea85...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. You can add whatever passwords. It asks you for a URL but you can put anything in.
> It asks you for a URL but you can put anything in. Well, that’s kind of the problem isn’t it? Yes, you can put bogus URLs, but it’s far from a great user experience
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It asks you for a URL but you can put anything in. Well, that’s kind of the problem isn’t it? Yes, you can put bogus URLs, but it’s far from a great user experience
door://businesstreet/23/A/front
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Also, some normal people are computer-smart enough to understand problems like credential-stuffing, if someone explains it to them.
People here are incredibly hard to please. Very clearly a packaging issue that got blown out of proportion. They've done largely the right things for _years_ in terms of security. They've operated pretty transparently in terms of open sourcing. They've allowed vaultwarden to exist, and eventually created a self hostable version as well. But one bad release with a license screw up and nobody is willing to give them an…
> 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?
This update is great news. I was disappointed to see the issue that got raised last week, and I had started to consider looking for alternatives. I’m going to assume an honest mistake on their end and keep recommending their product. However, if they make a similar move again, I will assume the worst and move on.
To be fair, Bitwarden clients are mostly GPL and can be forked, and there's Vaultwarden for self-hosting. We just need to rally together a community that would maintain such a fork.