this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
75 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

84769 readers
3534 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
75
The Quiet Renovation at Bitwarden - ByteHaven - Where I ramble about bytes (blog.ppb1701.com)
submitted 22 hours ago by Ananasdoener@feddit.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnoringEarthworm@sh.itjust.works 21 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Whether self-hosting stays viable long-term is the real question worth sitting with. Right now it works because Bitwarden’s clients are open source and the server API is public. Vaultwarden implements that API, and the official apps can’t tell the difference. That depends on Bitwarden continuing to publish open source clients and not restricting which servers they’ll talk to — neither of which is guaranteed under new management. The brake on the worst case: self-hosting is a listed Enterprise feature that generates real revenue. Killing it upsets paying business customers. That matters. The catch: what Bitwarden sells to enterprises is their own official server stack, not Vaultwarden. Vaultwarden exists in a space they’ve tolerated but never endorsed. If the calculus shifts, the tolerance ends without any announcement. Just let the API drift until compatibility breaks on its own.

Starting to plan my next migration : Vaultwarden, or completely separate alternative like Psono or AliasVault?

[–] DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf 13 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

KeePassXC, or ChiPass if you don't like LLMs in your password manager, but there are no precompiled binaries for this fork yet so you'll need to build it from source. That way you'll have your passwords entirely locally-hosted and won't have to worry about whether or not a cloud provider will rugpull you. I should advise, that if you do move to KeePass, you'll need to export your Bitwarden passwords in a way that KeePass will recognize when you go to import them.

As for KeePassXC's involvement in LLMs, this blog post covers that.

And here's KeePassDX for mobile users.

[–] eli@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

I use KeePassXC/DX with Syncthing for 5ish years now. I think I had one database sync conflict in all that time.

Super solid, never have had to worry about these shenanigans with LastPass or 1pass or bitwarden or whatever

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 5 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

would it be also plausible for say vaultwarden to make it's own client and just completely fork over if bitwarden becomes less open?

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 19 hours ago

It's really straightforward to fork a client, when all you have to do is plug in your own server anyway. In a worst case scenario from the company, you can continue using your current BitWarden clients (maybe something extra horrendous will happen and you'll have to downgrade), and talented people will start forking it within a reasonable timeframe.

[–] ag10n@lemmy.world -1 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Vaultwarden is its own client

[–] thoralf@discuss.familie-will.at 10 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

Vaultwarden has its own website. It uses the Bitwarden client though. There is - so far - no (dedicated) Vaultwarden client yet.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 14 points 20 hours ago

A new client specifically for Vaultwarden will show up if Bitwarden becomes hostiles against it and purposely sabotage the API.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 6 points 21 hours ago

Sorry I meant android/iphone apps and browser extensions. It would seem to me that's the easier part with all the work done on making the client.