Objective: Secure & private password management, prevent anyone from stealing your passwords.
Option 1: Store Keepass PW file in personal cloud service like OneDrive/GoogleDrive/etc , download file, use KeepassXC to Open
Option 2: Use ProtonPass or similar solution like Bitwarden
Option 3: Host a solution like Vaultwarden
Which would do you choose? Are there more options ? Assume strong masterpassword and strong technical skills
I used to self host Bitwarden, but didn’t want the hassle of securing it and updating it properly and consistently. So I just pay $10 for bitwarden premium and I get to support the company.
I’m very happy with self-hosted Vaultwarden.
Option 2. It’s the most robust. You’ll never lose it (provided you have the redundancy), you can use it offline, you can transfer it using a USB pen, it’s available in all platforms, including web. I’ve been using this for 8+ years, on my phone, desktop, laptop, company computer, etc. I store it on a personal cloud (and on each machine, of course, by syncing).
Host your own bitwarden
Option 4: levy existing tools such as gpg and git using something like pass. That way, you are keeping things simple but it requires more technical knowledge. Depending on your threat model, you may want to invest in a hardware security key such as a yubikey which works well with both gpg and ssh.
Why use tools not meant for password management, when alternative tools explicitly meant for password management, which have similar levels of security, work just fine?
You’re essentially saying “instead of driving down the road, I like to ride my bike with rollerblades.”
I have a set up like this (age, passage, & git). Bitwarden’s browser integration works just fine, for the most part. The thing is, some of my passwords are not browser-based, and I spend large amounts of time in the terminal. Using a CLI-tool in this case lets me save a bit of time
Bitwarden has a cli tool which I find pretty useful. Together with jq you can even pipe the password or store it to a variable.
Ah I didn’t know that! Thanks, will be checking it out for sure
It is just how I prefer to do my computing. I tend to live on the command line and pipe programs together to get complex behavior. If you don’t like that, then my approach is not for you and that’s fine. As for your analogy, I see it more as “instead of driving down the road in a car, I like to put my own car together using prefabs”.
I used option 1 (KeePass synced to Google Drive) for years. It’s nice that you know you have control of your passwords at all times, and as long as you can access your cloud storage account and can download a KeePass app, you can get your passwords. It works reasonably well most of the time, but I was consistently running into edge cases that weren’t as smooth as I’d have liked (mostly apps on Android)
I switched to vaultwarden (option 3), and immediately fell in love with things mostly just working. However, since I was hosting it out of my house, I had a bit of a disaster recovery problem. If i had say a fire, I could easily lose all copies of my vault, which would be… suboptimal.
After reviewing the options, I switched to straight bitwarden. I’ve been happy with the experience, and once I have disposable income, I plan to get pro long enough to have emergency contacts available so my family can still get important passwords in case of the worst.
All options have their pros and cons, but IMO password storage is something that deserves to be given proper consideration.
Option 3: Vaultwarden + Wireguard.
I don’t have to worry about attacks from the internet. And a single wireguard connection on my phone sometimes doesn’t even appear on the battery stats.
Edit: Browser addons need valid ssl certificates, which I get by dns challenge.
could you expand a bit on your edit? so bitwarden extensions need a valid ssl certificate for the domain where the server is hosted? how do you get that for (i assume) a local domain? thank you for your time!
DNS-01 challenge allows for domain ownership verification without open ports and instead looks for a txt record. Using a tool like lego[1] with the respective dns provider’s API automatically creates and deletes the txt record after generating a certificate.
Because ownership is verified by dns txt entry, the (sub-)domain doesn’t have to point to a publicly routable host. This allows for using any IP, so I’m using a local ip only available through wireguard or my local network (E.g. bitwarden.example.com points to 192.168.1.123).
The disadvantage is that the provider has to be supported and you have to store an API key for your domain on the server.
that’s genius. i have never even considered that you could use a (sub)domain with a local ip like that to get a certificate from a trusted ca. i ma not sure i understand the neccessity for api access to your dns service. is the txt record for LE different every time you have to pass a challenge? otherwise i imagine you could just set and forget the record.
thank you for the explanation, well appreciated!
Yes it’s awesome. I never even considered that it’s possible to add not publicly routable IP’s to public DNS server, until I recently read a post about dns-01 challenge.
I believe the txt record is different every time.
Not the one who wrote initially, but i have the same setup (mostly).
I went with a self signed certificate. So the server is running with a certificate i have signed with my own certification authority certificate (ca-cert) .
That means I have to install the ca-cert on all devices to get vaultwarden to accept it.The alternative is a let’s encrypt cerrtificate, which are free, but you need to open port 80 (and another one if I remember correctly) for it to work (at least every 3 months)
If you own a domain name you can use the DNS-01 challenge instead of hosting a web server to serve the challenge response.
With DNS-01 it will add a TXT record to your DNS zones and check if the record exists to verify that you own the domain and then issue the certificate.
Depending on which tool you use, they usually support DuckDNS and some other free DDNS providers. If you have your domain on a registrar, chances are that it’s also supported.
Yep that would be a good alternative…I don’t have an official domain for it, so I went the self-signed way
Which enables me to provide tls/https for all my local services. And it was a fun experience to learn
Bitwarden for me. My password manager is not just for me, it’s also a crucial component of my family life so if something happened to me I want my next of kin to be able to access it
For that it needs to be an easy to access solution.
Same, I’m all for complicated things that only I know how to use but the keys to the kingdom shouldn’t be one of those when there are laypeople relying on me.
I still have to figure out how to let those people in when needed, I’m thinking writing the master password and the backup code on a paper that lives in a drawer, maybe in a “break in case of emergency” box, etc.
Curious what’s the best way to mitigate the wrong person getting that, but I think if you have to worry about someone breaking in your house who is also looking for that info, then you have a different threat profile to consider, and the above calculus doesn’t apply.
Bitwarden offer the option to set up an emergency contact.
You choose someone to be an emergency contact, it means that if they want they can request access to view your passwords.
When they send a request you receive several emails to warn you and after X (you can choose the amount) days if you don’t do anything they get access to your account.
Keepass + syncthing.
Don’t let your vault go unencrypted through the cloud.
Your vault is always encrypted very securly except when in RAM. There is no security concern with uploading it directly to the cloud.
It’s encrypted at rest with a passphrase. Syncthing encrypts it at transit with a random key.
There is a huge difference on the security of those.
Keepass allows you to use a passphrase in combination with a randomly generated keyfile. You only need to copy the keyfiles to your devices once (not via cloud services, obviously). Your actual database can then be synchronized via any cloud provider of your choice (hell, you could even upload it publicly for everyone to see) and it would still be secure.
I use keepassXC and sync across my devices with nextcloud and VPN to my home network with wire guard and this setup has never failed me.
I’ve toyed around with passbolt, and I really want to try because it just looks cool to me, but I keep having trouble with it playing nice with my reverse proxy.
My personal preference is hosting it myself on my own server and using a VPN to get to it. It gives me peace of mind because I’m not a big enough target for someone to try that hard to get my passwords and I’m not exposed to bitwarden or dashlane getting breached.
Keepassxc + syncthing to phone in read only mode and to other machine. So 3 copies on different machine, while one of them is on me
Option 1, except for the cloud bit. My KeePass file is stored in a restricted shared folder on my home file server, and auto-syncs to my phone on the rare occasion I update it from my desktop.
Option 2 would be your best bet. Great balance between security and convenience. Bitwarden is my go to because afaik it stores every detail encrypted (unlike mainstream PWs) and when you open your vault, the database gets transferred to your pc and is decrypted locally. Its essentially the same as option 1, just 1000x more convenient.
Id only selfhost vaultwarden if you want bitwardens premium features, if you dont then youre maintaining a service which you wouldnt really need. Not to mention if you selfhost on a machine on your network, you have to deal with exposing that machine to the internet, not really worth it imo.
Vaultwarden behind mutual tls and reverse proxy and https://github.com/oguzhane/bitwarden-mobile until https://github.com/bitwarden/mobile/pull/2629 is merged
But honestly all services you mentioned are worthy.
Anything that fits your needs imao
That PR might be a while…
https://github.com/bitwarden/mobile/pull/2629#issuecomment-1731457466Considering that android is going to prevent users from importing a CA
Edit:
Wait, I think I have my wires crossed.
I think android is removing the ability for apps to install certs.
The user has to manually install a cert, and then select it in the appEdit again:
Yeh, this is what I was thinking of:
https://httptoolkit.com/blog/android-14-breaks-system-certificate-installation/But, thinking about it now, I doubt it will actually affect the feature
“But, thinking about it now, I doubt it will actually affect the feature”
It will not
We don’t need to import a custom CA authority here just to insatll a client cert
I use option 1 with Syncthing for a distributed cloud solution
