Bitwarden second security audit report

Re:Bitwarden second security audit report by graton on Thursday July 23, 2020 @11:06AM (#23928100)

I use Bitwarden_rs (https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs) and self-host it in a Docker container on my Synology NAS. I only allow access to it from my internal home network.

The nice thing about Bitwarden_rs is that you get features which you would have to pay for with normal Bitwarden. For example 2FA with U2F. As a note Bitwarden_rs is written in Rust.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bitwarden second security audit report by chrismorgan on Thursday July 23, 2020 @01:47PM (#23930039)

That’s not what I would call the nice thing about bitwarden_rs. What I would call the nice thing is single-user total disk usage under 20MB and memory usage under 30MB, with totally negligible CPU usage. The official server requires SQL Server and quotes recommends 4GB of RAM and 25GB of disk space as a minimum, though I imagine the true minimum it could survive with would be a good deal less. (Still, I do appreciate being able to generate TOTP codes, which is paid functionality with the official server.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bitwarden second security audit report by peterloron on Thursday July 23, 2020 @02:27PM (#23930533)

While you can used the premium features without paying, I would strongly urge you to pay for a license anyway. It doesn't cost much and the Bitwarden folks are a small team doing a great product. I really like bitwarden_rs and wish the official server would adopt it or something similar. The official server is pretty darn heavy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bitwarden second security audit report by ViViDboarder on Thursday July 23, 2020 @11:21AM (#23928275)

I also use Bitwarden_rs so I don’t have to host a MSSQL database, but it’s worth noting that the Bitwarden_rs server hasn’t been audited. It uses the same upstream clients (including web), but that doesn’t fully cover the implementation.

[ Parent | on HN ]