I currently use KeepassXC that is synced through NextCloud. The sync isn’t very elegant, especially on my phone. So I’m looking for a new password manager, which has a native server sync support that I can self host. What do y’all recommend? I need at least a phone app and a browser integration that can autofill.

  • EmbarrassedDrum@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 days ago

    Bitwarden.

    My recommendation: Don’t use Vaultwarden (self hostable server side of bitwarden. Really easy to run and use). Why? You’re not a security personal, and securing your vault isn’t your job. You might do a slight mistake that’ll lead to the compromise of your vault.

    The people at Bitwarden have their work dedicated to securing the vaults and all they do is security. And they’ll probably do it better then you. When it comes to serious matter, I prefer to trust the professionals.

    • EpicGamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 days ago

      Doesn’t the server just hold an encrypted vault? What could go wrong when the server is compromised? Just thinking out loud I don’t know the answer

      • EmbarrassedDrum@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Let’s say I have an unupdated patch and my server is now vulnerable.

        This could really happen. I have work and life to worry about and I might not notice.

        This vulnerability, could be in the BW instance itself (say the web server or the backend itself), or in the server itself (say an old OpenSSH version), or another service (NextCloud instance hosted in the same server under a different subdomain).

        So, first we see it’s a big attack surface. In any of those entrances an attacker could gain access to my server and with it the vault. It’s a short way from there to install a keylogger on the website where BW is hosted, and get my master password ¯_(ツ)_/¯.

        Now take into consideration that I just sat a couple of minutes to think about this, and I’m not a professional in cyber security or web security. Neither blue nor red team. A professional, with more knowledge, time, experience and resources, could probably bring up much more things.

      • herrvogel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        I just don’t want any unauthorized persons anywhere near my vaults in general. I also see my vault as a critical service that requires high availability, and I know enough about system administration to know that my network and I are not qualified to provide that.

      • smiletolerantly@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        Yep, that’s right. In theory you could share the encrypted DB with the public and not degrade security. (Still don’t do that though…)

    • superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 days ago

      Just to play devils advocate. Bitwarden.com is a much more valuable target. My instance is behind a VPN. I think its actually far more likely Bitwarden will have a breach similar to LastPass then I will. But I agree with you mostly.

      • asap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        The data stored on Bitwarden’s servers is completely encrypted though, which means a breach will not yield useful data, unlike the plain text storage for LastPass.

        I have the ability to selfhost BW so I am interested in counterpoints.

        • superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yes I agree. I was just offering a counter to the statement that Vaultwarden isnt as safe as Bitwarden. They both are encrypted but my vaultwarden instance is a lot less likely to experience a breach than Bitwarden. The guys with real skill are going after Bitwarden not me.

          • EmbarrassedDrum@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            That’s a good point.

            Notice, your server is less likely to be targeted. But much more likely to receive a breach once it’s targeted.

            It’s helpful to analog. You got gold. Thieves are more likely to target a bank, but if they’ll know of some gold in your house, it’ll be much easier for them to take it from your house rather than from the bank.

            And now you have to work and make sure people don’t find out about the gold in your house. Because once they did it’s game over.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 days ago

      Ignoring the security aspect of it Bitwarden is responsible for hosting a fault tolerant, highly available web app.

      They have redundant networking, redundant servers, load balancers, redundant databases.

      While you could host this yourself to these tolerances it’s work and it’s not free.

      If you’re using your password manager to the fullest you have a different password for every resource out there. It’s more than a minor inconvenience if you get locked out of your passwords.

      Their service is dirt cheap and it’s absolutely worth every penny.

    • aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      VW isn’t the self hostable version of BW. It’s a complete rewrite. I don’t know if it is audited in the same way as BW, so I wouldn’t recommend it until you check that. BW can be self hosted as it is. VW is a rewrite with all the premium features unlocked for free