this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
773 points (99.2% liked)

Selfhosted

59233 readers
1521 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

  7. No low-effort posts. This is subjective and will largely be determined by the community member reports.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In the latest episode of "they will always sell you out" - they sold you out! Who would've thought.

Hoping for a good alternative client to appear, the writing is on the wall. Vaultwarden can't exist without "leeching" off of Bitwarden.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] slate@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 day ago (3 children)

KeePass isn't going anywhere. They're also dragging their feet on passkey support, so you might go with KeepassXC.

[–] zeitverschreib@freundica.de 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

@slate

Wasn't there some commotion a few weeks about KeepassXC and vibe coding?

@RonnyZittledong

[–] Dumhuvud@programming.dev 29 points 1 day ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

Yeah, there was. It was forked because of that, actually: https://codeberg.org/ChiPass

[–] wiccan2@thelemmy.club 1 points 21 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Dumhuvud@programming.dev 2 points 12 hours ago

I edited the comment. It ended with a period before, I assume your client thought it was a part of the link. Does it work now?

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz 6 points 19 hours ago

Their AI policy looks very reasonable, and they certainly aren't vibe coding. Everything is rigorously reviewed and tested by a handful of experienced, competent humans.

[–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

They also don't effectively allow collaboration though, which is my cheif reason for using a cloud hosted password manager.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 5 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

What is "collaboration" in this context?

[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Parallel creating, reading, updating, deleting password entries by multiple users.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 points 20 hours ago

Whoa, thanks. I had no idea this was a thing...

[–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Sharing passwords between groups of people so everyone always has the up to date version. Not breaking the world if two people try to modify the same entry as some file syncing solutions do.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev -1 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Hmm, interesting, though isn't that a fault of the organization not having an account-linking system so that each person could have their own credentials but can still access the unified content? This workaround seems... flimsy, unless I'm not picturing a legit scenario in which no other method is as good, or something.

[–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 hours ago

It's the fault of my family organization or every company we use that my parent's bank, Google, phone, laptop, etc don't allow more than one set of credentials to access the same thing?
It's not just that we need to be able to share credentials the once a blue moon I need to help them by logging into their account?

[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

You know why most cloud based services charge money? For stuff like this, because it’s not free to implement and maintain.

Easy and fault-proof password sharing and syncing needs software and hardware to do. You either set it up and maintain it yourself, or pay for a product that does it - like Bitwarden.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

But your argument falls apart against something like Syncthing's discovery networks combined with send-/receive-only folder types, which use no cloud yet allow the automatic, passive propagation of file updates to different users' devices... right? No cloud, no self-hosting, yet automatic syncing across multiple devices...

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Sure they do. Multiple people can have a file open at the same time. I use it for exactly this every day at work.

With KeePassXC, that is. I don't know if other flavors have different support. I use XC primarily for the browser extension.

[–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

And you can both modify the same things without causing horrible conflict issues? And you can share only parts of your vault with someone rather than having entirely different vaults you have to switch between? I'm assuming you mean putting the file somewhere like Google Drive, and you can access it offline even if you can't edit it offline? For feature parity with Bitwarden, obviously ideally one could edit any time and it would resolve problems when it came back online if there were any but Bitwarden doesn't allow this.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, no conflicts. I don't know if you can only share part of vault; I just created a separate one for a separate team.

I wouldn't put it in Google Drive or anything like that. The separate sync logic will definitely cause conflicts.

I'm not worried about having access if I'm offline, because if I'm offline I'm not going to be able to log into anything anyway.

[–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

I guess a laptop, server, IoT device, or WiFi connection when your main device doesn't have internet is out of scope for you?
Like fixing my laptop and not wanting to type the new password into my phone instead of copy/paste, sync when online?
And how are you sharing a file, to multiple people anywhere in the world realtime ish, without a cloud service you or someone else hosts? Doesn't that necessitate some syncronization logic?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 21 hours ago

It's hosted on a local network share, so we don't need Internet access.

If can't copy paste, I just type it out.

We use a VPN to the office.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev -3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

They’re also dragging their feet on passkey support

As... they... should, forever.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 15 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Two articles behind a paywall, one that won’t load, and another article that says the big problem with passkeys is…people are unfamiliar with them.

If anyone tells you that Passkeys are bad, they’re a liar. Way more safe than passwords, full stop.

Just don’t let Microsoft or Apple tie them to your device. You don’t have to do that.

[–] qqq@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

There is no full stop there... A password that is sufficiently long will never be cracked no matter the hashing algorithm in use. Passwords are easily transferrable and can be communicated to a third party in the event of an emergency. They also provide tunable security, where you can trade off security for convenience if you want.

Some (not all, I know) passkeys are tied to a device. Stolen device means stolen passkey, and it's potentially very difficult to recover from that. Passkeys are also locked to a certain standard, passwords have no such restrictions.

Tbh I don't understand the move for passkeys replacing passwords. They should become the second factor when a user wants additional security. They're perfect for that niche.

[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 3 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Are you calling me a liar? That's pretty weird; it's not like I'm telling you to stick to passwords while I move to passkeys. With that said, though, get Bypass Paywalls Clean (Mozilla-only, as far as I know) and you'll never see another paywall again. I forgot about having that.

Just don’t let Microsoft or Apple tie them to your device. You don’t have to do that.

The problem is that this is where it's eventually going to lead to.

[–] Lemmert@reddthat.com 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

At the very least you're misguided or don't know what you're talking about. Passkeys are not vendor locked in and of themselves.

You can make the same argument against password managers because most iPhone users that use them, use Apple's one.

[–] qqq@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

They will almost certainly lead to vendor lock in. Why do you think they won't? Apple's password manager is definitely an example of vendor lock in. Many others have a simple to use export feature to CSV or something that others can understand

Edit: it could be that you don't know what the WebAuthn/FIDO2 specification says or we understand it differently? Do you know how the attestation mechanism works? That ties the key to a device of software authenticator (the software authenticator is likely going to tie it to the device somehow, possibly even via a TEE).

[–] fushuan@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 18 hours ago

Not really, Vaultwarden/bitwa4den offer passkey support. When I log into a service a popup shows on my extension, I click it and I'm in. It's not gonna lead to device locking if you don't want to...