• Llewellyn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    That different FOSS client stores your data on their company’s server. It’s an important factor, IMO.

    • kurcatovium
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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?

      • Llewellyn
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I find risk slightly bigger when you encrypt your private data with the product of the company and store that encrypted data on servers of the same company.

        Why: because if they have some backdoor now or plans to introduce it in future, they have all the time in the world to apply that backdoor to your data. Without you knowing it.

        • kurcatovium
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Bitwarden client is FOSS same as Keepass, though. Why aren’t you afraid of Keepass having backdoor by “insert whatever big corporation sponsoring FOSS” giving said companies free access to your passwords you happily store in their clouds?

          • Llewellyn
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Keepass could have backdoors too. The difference is: authors of those backdoors are not from the same company, which I use as cloud storage.