Live data from Hacker News

Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

github.com

41–50 of 162 posts

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#41
post #13

I love this project, but something has always bothered me about it. For something as critical as your entire set of passwords, aren’t you essentially trusting this person you’ve never met to not just take all of them when you use the server? For example, one day a malicious maintainer could flip a switch that simply updates the docker image to send thousands of peoples’ entire vault somewhere and then disappear, no?

This is the use case that something like sandstorm.io tries to solve, by locking down system calls on the backend and (slowly but surely) CSP on the frontend. I don’t think BitWarden has been ported yet, though.

Is sandstorm active again? A few years ago there was some news about the company behind it running out of money and abandoning the project if I remember correctly.

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#42

I love this project, but something has always bothered me about it. For something as critical as your entire set of passwords, aren’t you essentially trusting this person you’ve never met to not just take all of them when you use the server? For example, one day a malicious maintainer could flip a switch that simply updates the docker image to send thousands of peoples’ entire vault somewhere and then disappear, no?

You are in control here. It's like every other bit of software you run yourself: it's your problem to do it properly.

1) if you worry about people replacing the docker image you are using, build your own. It's not hard. Alternatively, use a specific version of the docker image by specifying the version or the hash (if you are really paranoid). Of course after you review the Dockerfile. Minimum at least glance through the Dockerfile.

2) bitwarden has import/export functionality (client side) so if your server disappears for whatever reason, you can still export your passwords from the client side.

3) if you don't trust the OSS code, audit it or at least look through it. That's the whole point of OSS. Build it from source if you must. File bugs. Look at the issue tracker. You can choose not to but if something happens it's your problem; not somebody else's problem.

4) The vault is encrypted and the server never handles or sees the decrypted content (see 3 to verify this). Other people's ability to break that encryption depends on you using a secure master password.

5) Or just pay Bitwarden to host passwords for you and rely on their terms of use, SLAs, support, good reputation, and what not. That's probably the best option if you want ass coverage for professional usage. Their pricing is very reasonable for small setups. And probably sharing passwords with a large group of users is just a spectacularly bad idea to begin with. A couple of key users, should cost you max 20/month. Not really worth dedicating devops time for self hosting unless you have a really good reason to. If you do, see 1-4.

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#43

Something about running your own password manager server seems very risky to me.

The desktop[1] and mobile clients have a local database, so if the server is offline, you still have all of your data, you just can't sync.

[1]: Note that the Bitwarden desktop client has a major remote code execution vulnerability that the developer has closed WONTFIX, so I don't recommend running the stock one without patching that out (as well as the spyware they embed in it).

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#44
I switched to using this because keepass didn’t have a good way of syncing its database with iOS devices, and the official bitwarden server has too many moving parts (including MS-SQL with no support for open source databases??) - aside from missing ssh-agent support, I’m loving all of it :)

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#45

I love this project, but something has always bothered me about it. For something as critical as your entire set of passwords, aren’t you essentially trusting this person you’ve never met to not just take all of them when you use the server? For example, one day a malicious maintainer could flip a switch that simply updates the docker image to send thousands of peoples’ entire vault somewhere and then disappear, no?

You self-host it. The data is going to your own server.

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#46

I love this project, but something has always bothered me about it. For something as critical as your entire set of passwords, aren’t you essentially trusting this person you’ve never met to not just take all of them when you use the server? For example, one day a malicious maintainer could flip a switch that simply updates the docker image to send thousands of peoples’ entire vault somewhere and then disappear, no?

Especially since bitwarden itself is already open source. This is a great learning project probably but not great for use

The official Bitwarden server depends on MSSQL.

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#47
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitwarden has a CLI tool which is pretty good.

what I mean is that why do you need bitwarden at all?

Ensure that the data is stored securely, integrate with the various password-manager hooks of OS and browsers, generate passwords, …

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#48
post #5

I love this project, but something has always bothered me about it. For something as critical as your entire set of passwords, aren’t you essentially trusting this person you’ve never met to not just take all of them when you use the server? For example, one day a malicious maintainer could flip a switch that simply updates the docker image to send thousands of peoples’ entire vault somewhere and then disappear, no?

If I'm not mistaken it should be mostly fine as long as you trust the desktop/phone versions of Bitwarden not to send off the (unhashed) key to the server Edit: Noting that there have been discussions about the default number of iterations. https://github.com/bitwarden/jslib/issues/52

Note also that the bitwarden desktop app has a remote code execution vulnerability that the developers refuse to fix, which means that the developers can, at any time, replace your local copy of the bitwarden desktop app with a different version that could steal all your passwords in exactly the manner you describe.

You can patch the bitwarden client (and also take the opportunity to remove the spyware they have embedded in it, as well), or use a program like LuLu or Little Snitch to block it from communicating with anything but your own selfhosted bitwarden_rs instance.

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#49
post #43

Something about running your own password manager server seems very risky to me.

The desktop[1] and mobile clients have a local database, so if the server is offline, you still have all of your data, you just can't sync. [1]: Note that the Bitwarden desktop client has a major remote code execution vulnerability that the developer has closed WONTFIX, so I don't recommend running the stock one without patching that out (as well as the spyware they embed in it).

Any more information on your claims? This is the first time I hear of this...

Re: Bitwarden_rs: Unofficial Bitwarden compatible server written in Rust

#50
post #43

Something about running your own password manager server seems very risky to me.

The desktop[1] and mobile clients have a local database, so if the server is offline, you still have all of your data, you just can't sync. [1]: Note that the Bitwarden desktop client has a major remote code execution vulnerability that the developer has closed WONTFIX, so I don't recommend running the stock one without patching that out (as well as the spyware they embed in it).

Not linking to the "major RCE vulnerability" is sensationalist posting at its finest.

I can assume you are referring to... the automatic updater? https://github.com/bitwarden/desktop/issues/552

Post reply on HN