this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
585 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59402 readers
4094 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure what you're comparing it to. Keepass is free too, in fact it's open source. In my opinion, local software and database that is under your control is always superior to cloud.
Keepass over Bitwarden offers a lot of plugins and integrations, again, if you want more customization or automation.
But, I would say you can use any online password manager as long as it's end to end encrypted, so Bitwarden is a good choice.
Now there's an unfounded blanket statement if I ever saw one.
Statement related to previous cloud hacks i assume.
Should have say: self-hosting is always superior to cloud hosting.
Bitwarden (the client) + Vaultwarden (the self-hosted server) is a good combo if you have some knowledge on how to setup it.
That statement still comes with a pretty damn big caveat though - you need to have the know-how, the time to invest and the hardware (i.e money) to actually set something like this up.
If all of those are true, then self-hosting can definitely be an attractive option for you.
It's only true for a vanishingly small fraction of the population, though.
Hence, Bitwarden is a pragmatic solution that will be superior for the vast majority of the population.