Lol, imagine ridiculing users for trusting an FOSS company to handle their password management, and then storing your encrypted password DB in Microsoft’s OneDrive 😆
This is where your lack of understanding of the open source thing is readily apparent to everyone arguing with you. If it was backdoored, many people would be calling that out. In fact, this was one of the exact reasons at the heart of the original concerns leading to this story.
The fact that the source is available means that we can see exactly how the data is encrypted, allowing assurances to be made independently.
If nothing else, I trust Bitwarden MORE because of that and I’m happy to pay them for their services since it helps find further development.
If it was backdoored, many people would be calling that out.
In theory. And not necessarily soon.
Don’t forget the context of this thread: we compare bitwarden with keepass, which does not offer to you your password base on their server side.
Dude, how is bitwarden hosting your own, locally encrypted (in FOSS client) password database any different than using keypass and syncing it however you want?
I don’t even use Bitwarden myself, I’m using keepass too, but this attitude is … weird?
Lol, imagine ridiculing users for trusting an FOSS company to handle their password management, and then storing your encrypted password DB in Microsoft’s OneDrive 😆
encrypted is the key word
I knew a comment like this was coming, but unless you can show how microsoft can decrypt my kdbx I stand fully by my current setup.
I don’t think Microsoft can decrypt your DB file, neither do I think Bitwarden can. Encryption happens locally on their open source clients too.
But I’m not the one disparaging trusting an open source program to securely encrypt passwords, you are.
Could you please show how bitwarden can decrypt a vault that’s locally encrypted by a foss client?
“Imagine trusting any company with your passwords”
They created the client. In theory, they can have some backdoors. And since you store your files on their side, risk is greater, imo
This is where your lack of understanding of the open source thing is readily apparent to everyone arguing with you. If it was backdoored, many people would be calling that out. In fact, this was one of the exact reasons at the heart of the original concerns leading to this story.
The fact that the source is available means that we can see exactly how the data is encrypted, allowing assurances to be made independently.
If nothing else, I trust Bitwarden MORE because of that and I’m happy to pay them for their services since it helps find further development.
In theory. And not necessarily soon. Don’t forget the context of this thread: we compare bitwarden with keepass, which does not offer to you your password base on their server side.
Trusting one FOSS client good. Trusting different FOSS client bad. Logic where?
That different FOSS client stores your data on their company’s server. It’s an important factor, IMO.
Dude, how is bitwarden hosting your own, locally encrypted (in FOSS client) password database any different than using keypass and syncing it however you want?
I don’t even use Bitwarden myself, I’m using keepass too, but this attitude is … weird?