Has this been audited? It’s easy to claim that something is secure, but there have been products that made such claims and were trivially exploitable.
The Github page says they are aiming to get one done soon.
They shouldn’t claim that an effing password manager is “secure” until after they’ve done an audit.
I’ll pass, thanks.
deleted by creator
I hope it doesn’t say as I didn’t bother to check - how do free projects get money for audits like this?
deleted by creator
One thing that jumps out at me reading the readme is the fact that it has a built in email server. Email is hard to get right, and I’m surprised a relatively young(?) project is working on getting all the moving pieces together rather than declaring it out of scope.
It’ll be interesting to see how it develops.
I would never trust a newly written email server and there is absolutely no reason not to use an already existing as a dependency to this project.
I’ll optimistically sit back and see what comes of this. I’m happy with vaultwarden.
They said VaultWarden, not BitWarden. This shouldn’t affect them.
It could. The removal of “transparency” indicates to me that the clients might also stop being open source at some point and Vaultwarden doesn’t have its own clients.
Do you have thoughts on 1password?
I’m curious why you asked this?…
Aren’t both of them password managers? I guess I wonder if someone has a preference for one over the other.
They are, it’s just odd to bring up an unrelated software.
I do use 1Password and like it, but I couldn’t compare it to this one.
Thanks but i stick to keepass. It does the job
