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

KeePassXC 2.4.3

keepassxc.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: KeePassXC 2.4.3

#61

Post by alexnewman »

ufo wrote: post #28
alexnewman wrote: post #25

Why should I switch from pass (git+pgp) to keepassx ?What's one feature in keepassx nto in pass/passx

For me the biggest difference is that you have a single encrypted database file, and that no metadata is stored unencrypted. By default, pass uses file names as keys, so website names are stored in the clear. (To fix this on pass.you need to use pass-tomb, which I found very clunky, and could never get working quite right) Another thing I like about keepassxc is that it has lots of features. It comes with a flexible…

This is a common claim, and besides that fact that tomb fixes it and is supported on all distributions, I'm not convinced it's a problem. What's the threat model? That folder should be 700 anyway? Or is this just paranoia?

Re: KeePassXC 2.4.3

#62

Post by ASalazarMX »

sebazzz wrote: post #32
mrrsm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

KeePass is the original project. It is an open source dotnet application. The source code, as of the last time I checked, is released as a tar/zip with the binaries only. KeePassX is an open source c++ application. It was one of the cross platform applications to manage KeePass databases. It has not been under very active development for a while. KeePassXC is a fork of KeePassX which is under active developement. The…

Is KeePassXC also audited? The main KeePass has had multiple security audits, also thanks to the EU who funded it one time. Seems relevant for a password manager.

While I like KeePassXC more, this is even more relevant as KeePassXC is made in C++, while Keepass is made in C#. C++ makes it easier to shoot yourself in the foot.

It hasn't: https://keepassxc.org/docs/#faq-audit

Re: KeePassXC 2.4.3

#63

Post by mieses »

I switched from KeePass to KeeWeb because of the user interface and Google Drive integration. KeeWeb is an open source cross platform Electron app.

Re: KeePassXC 2.4.3

#64

Post by mieses »

amaccuish wrote: post #50

Anyone got any good recommendations for an iOS client. I've just moved from android and there's several but not sure which to pick, which are opensource etc.

https://github.com/MiniKeePass/MiniKeePass it's very basic but it works. if you keep the kdbx file in cloud storage, you can use iOS "open with" to open in MiniKeePass.

Re: KeePassXC 2.4.3

#65

Post by WorldMaker »

ggttuu wrote: post #49
Jonnax wrote: post #7

I was only aware of Keepass itself. What are the differences between KeypassXC, KeepassX and Keepass?

I'm a LastPass user trying to switch to KeePassXC. I tried it once on my computer but couldn't find a way to create folder inside a folder inside a folder and so on. I like organizing everything so this is the only thing holding me from switching to KeePass. BTW is it possible to do that in KeePass? I haven't explored it a lot.

I've got a complex hierarchy of folders (Groups in Keepass terminology) in some of my Keepass files. It's definitely possible to do, some of the UIs are better than others at making it obvious.

Re: KeePassXC 2.4.3

#66

Post by alexnewman »

alexnewman wrote: post #61
ufo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me the biggest difference is that you have a single encrypted database file, and that no metadata is stored unencrypted. By default, pass uses file names as keys, so website names are stored in the clear. (To fix this on pass.you need to use pass-tomb, which I found very clunky, and could never get working quite right) Another thing I like about keepassxc is that it has lots of features. It comes with a flexible…

This is a common claim, and besides that fact that tomb fixes it and is supported on all distributions, I'm not convinced it's a problem. What's the threat model? That folder should be 700 anyway? Or is this just paranoia?

but exposes to who?

Re: KeePassXC 2.4.3

#67

Post by noisy_boy »

ativzzz wrote: post #56
noisy_boy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I setup two-way sync of the database with my android phone using syncthing - works flawlessly.

What's the difference between just opening the file directly on a shared drive? Possible conflicts with opening the database in multiple apps?

Wouldn't that require mounting of the shared partition on Android (or making it available is some day)? With syncthing, there is no such requirement.
Post reply on HN