this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
165 points (96.6% liked)

Selfhosted

40359 readers
351 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.

Resources:

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

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm going to move away from lastpass because the user experience is pretty fucking shit. I was going to look at 1pass as I use it a lot at work and so know it. However I have heard a lot of praise for BitWarden and VaultWarden on here and so probably going to try them out first.

My questions are to those of you who self-host, firstly: why?

And how do you mitigate the risk of your internet going down at home and blocking your access while away?

BitWarden's paid tier is only $10 a year which I'm happy to pay to support a decent service, but im curious about the benefits of the above. I already run syncthing on a pi so adding a password manager wouldn't need any additional hardware.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Vaultwarden is one of the few services I'd actually trust to be secure, so I wouldn't worry if you update timely to new versions.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hope it gets security audited one day, like Bitwarden was.

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because they use the official apps/web-vault, they don't need to implement most of the vault/encryption features, so at least the actual data should be fine.

Security audits are expensive, so I don't expect it to happen, unless some sponsor pays for it.

They have processes for CVEs and it seems like there wasn't any major security issues (altough I wouldn't host a public instance for unknown users).

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 1 month ago

That's a good point. I didn't consider the fact that all the encryption is done client-side, so that's the most important part to audit (which Bitwarden has already done).