[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/password-manager-1password-rais...
I’ve been wanting to switch from 1Password to Bitwarden for years, but each year I try it I’m just flummoxed by how atrociously behind the UX / UI still is.
Unless you (or whoever you’re getting to switch) are an absolute open source absolutist: do yourself a favor and go for 1Password.
Did you check 1Password developer tools, like SSH-agent server, git commit signing, and CLI? https://developer.1password.com/
Or the new item and file sharing. https://support.1password.com/share-items/
I put them under the same reliability umbrella (maybe even a touch higher) than Fastmail, which is high praise IMO.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound like an ass, they look like very well put together features. They just remind me of when Dropbox decided to start offering document editing. Not what I go there for.
We have a lot of 1Password customers with families and team members that require more than a single vault, need an option to recover team/family member access and often have to securely share data with other people, accountants and lawyers. Also, many of developers and admins that want to keep their SSH keys safe.
- Drag a password into a password field
- Drag an attachment from Finder/Explorer into an item
- Drag an item from vault to vault (or collection in Bitwarden parlance)
- Drag an item into a tag or folder to add that item to the folder, or add that tag to the item
- Drag an app to the 1Password icon to create a software license item with the icon of the app as well as name
There are also drag and drop functions, some similar to above, on iOS as well.
Bitwarden is... and I agree with the grand parent here, awful from a UX angle, compared to 1Password. It's certainly functional, but that's about where it ends for me.
If you don't have the app installed it opens the website in a tab to signin and edit.
Until recently I was using it for two different accounts in the same 1Password business account, one account enabled with integration to the desktop app and a second account on another browser profile (for admin purposes) with just the browser extension.
Neither of those necessitated logging in again in another tab.
Still using 1Password, but Firefox containers have removed the need for multiple Firefox profiles.
For a second business I use Bitwarden, and that works well, but I find 1Password superior in so many respects.
The 1Password browser extension and application should sync, but it’s experimental on Linux AFAIK.
I selfhost and use Vaultwarden myself and it is fantastic, so I wanted to support it on Nimbus fairly quickly (it’s going to jump the queue).
Deciding never to take VC funding is a big step but I’m definitely open to it as I’m trying to build a “lifestyle” competitor to AWS.
[0]: https://nimbusws.com
If he had a sustainable business and took the VC funding it means he has grander ambitions. That will mean change as well.
No matter how you look at it there will be change coming. Fueled by people who want a return on their investment.
I wasn’t aware of this, but I’m glad I am now. If that’s the case it’s time to look elsewhere or self host, VC funds and acquisitions are rarely good for users so I’ll assume the worst.
With BW I have never expected the same and I am still hopeful on giving them the benefit of doubt.
The licenses are also confusing — people had to purchase apps separately for every platform: macOS, Windows, iOS, Android. And then they had to purchase upgrades separately as well.
The article above talks about them being shutdown
Where does this sentiment come from? I know very few applications I use that are VC funded or haven't gone through acquisitions...
$100M to develop a new processor or phone or vaccine or search engine or social network that delivers video to everyone worldwide is different than $100M to a password manager or other “simpler” project.
If the user base does not increase at some rate determined by the investor, then growth comes in the form of advertising, partnerships, or similar that negatively affect the _product_ existing customers signed up for.
When investors get involved in software, you end up with winners and users.
1. Totally agree with the comments that VC funding absolutely killed LastPass.
2. Twitter is probably another good example. Twitter was a really large business, but they were constantly wringing their hands about what they could do to get as big as Facebook or Instagram. What if the answer was always just "No, you'll never be that big, just don't even try". So instead of improving their core bread-and-butter (and fine, easy to argue they didn't even do that super well), they wasted a ton trying to get users who were never going to use Twitter in the first place.
3. Very closely related to this idea about "When large sums of money become toxic", the private equity consolidation in US health care is another ongoing disaster. PE comes in with the promise of "streamlining operations", but instead they are just vampires, cutting stuff to the bone so that the health care system isn't able to respond to spikes in demand (e.g. Covid): https://www.statnews.com/2022/12/14/moodys-private-equity-he...
But more importantly, I don't think VC or VC money is always bad, but I get extremely wary when a relatively small company gets a shitload of money that they'll then be forced to grow into a way that means they'll lose focus on their core product.
I remember when I told a friend of mine that Postman raised nearly half a billion dollars in total funding, and his jaw dropped "You mean that browser plugin that allows you to make REST calls???" And sure enough, postman got filled with more and more "enterprise-y uselessness" to the point that I just stopped using it.
Irrationally so. That's my point. There isn't a strong indicator that correlates to a company being a craigslist vs a company being a Postman. The median is somewhere in between and its not as dire as you pose it to be.
What's a good OSS alternative that works with iOS and Linux? Anything that's audited? (perhaps that's asking for too much)
Lots of more "modern" password managers (as well as generally other software) kinda suffer from having this weird mixed mobile and desktop interface, inheriting all the downsides of each interface while gaining the advantages of neither. (Not to mention all the issues with porting stuff between two different OSes; Mac and Windows have completely different ideas on what an interface should look like.)
KeePass's official client being windows-only is a blessing in disguise since it means that each client developer can specifically focus on making it look good on whatever specific platform they're targeting.
I agree, and I wish we had more power in these things than just forking. Now that I know Bitwarden took VC money, I'm also fucking out of this mess, and here I was about to renew for the 5th year in a row.
Fuck VC's, they ruin everything good. Can I say that here? It's true.
It's almost like the interests of those who want to get fabulously wealthy -- whether founders or investors -- become misaligned with the interests of the users, even steeper/faster than when you "just" have a "lifestyle business".
Not VC billions, but fuck you money is certainly doable.
How much do you need to take a, say, $130K income for the rest of your life? (Which is still not really enough to live at a wealthy luxury standard). Depends on how old you are and how long you'll live, as well as anticipated rates of investment return. But it's almost definitely more than 2 million.
https://www.thekickassentrepreneur.com/never-have-to-work-ag...
See John Goodman in the Big Lebowski for a full definition.
> But all the established money seeking rent parked at VC firms can't get a cut if you don't play ball with them.
OK, but why does a founder care about that? Either they think their business model can't get them to a sustainable lifestyle business without external capital investment... or they want to get more-than-lifestyle-business wealthy, right?
There are iOS and Android clients, too. Not especially polished, but they do the job.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of the bait-amd-switch of companies who are all about freedom until they get acquired by a giant and then start hastily walling their garden.
Customers are members/owners.
Examples: Tessitura, NISC
Is it true that they couldn't sell out though? I imagine if the buyer offered a pile of money then the majority of the owner-workers would go for it, even at the expense of the users.
I think that a worker-owned cooperative is not really in line with what I would consider to be the traditional cooperative spirit.
Customer-owned has a clear mission to deliver value to its owners. That value would be to provide various services essentially at cost. Workers are paid market rate to get the work done. Profits are given back to the owners (customers).
Worker-owned also has the mission to deliver value to the owners. The workers are going to value making as much money as possible, though being careful to not go past the point where they would find themselves without a job. So this type of co-op will be trying to extract maximum value out of the customer. This is a significantly different proposition. This type of co-op seems more like a company with an ESOP.
I could see either type choosing to sell out. I guess either the workers or customers would think they have better places to invest the capital. So I guess co-ops too have up and down lifecycles like a standard company. As the co-op becomes ineffective or no longer needed, the capital invested in it would be re-deployed.
As a thought experiment, let's say there are 1000 people who get annoyed when a software product they use takes VC funding. For those 1000 people to sustain a software product with a team of 5 for 10 years at 150k average per head. you'd need 7.5MM dollars just to break even. That's $7,500 per user, or $750 per year. I doubt many people would be willing to pay that just to have a product that never takes VC funding.
And note that's just to cover labor costs. If you want it audited, that's a solid 25k per audit. Operating costs for website and infrastructure, etc. Now if the product was exceptional and beat out other products in the space and generally had a slice of the pie, the number of users would increase and per user cost would decrease. But also doing as much with a team of 5 is no small feat.
But once you get into VC funding or acquisitions, businesses tend to want to grow and bloat their products by adding features no one asked for to increase their perceived value. I know I'm tired of seeing this happen to beloved software time and time again.
That being said: it's unclear if anyone really understands how to build an open source product with cloud hosting covering the bills. Almost everyone either makes a deal with the devil (VC funding) or upsells too aggressively anyway.
Cloud storage and CPU usage is basically negligible per-user for a password manager. I imagine you could service hundreds of millions of users on just a couple of capable machines, similar to HN's setup. Even with hundreds of passwords, most users total mere MB's of usage -- it's even simpler than email! I think this is one of the rare cases where corporate users can pay for big accounts with special sharing features and completely subsidize a free product for individual users. Or you could charge individual users $5 a year to cover cloud costs (more than enough), with self-hosting as an option for highly technical users to save a buck.
All of those are true of Bitwarden, except for the non-profit part...
> Or you could charge individual users $5 a year to cover cloud costs
And who pays for the development?? Bitwarden already charges only 10€/year, so they're basically doing exactly what you're proposing, but paying for development with VC money.
Even if servers were literally free (they're far from it!), do you have any idea how many users they'd need to cover just the minimal amount of developers, one business person and either an in-house or external security auditor? And who would pay for all of that during the time it took them to build up that user base??
I hate the VC culture as much as the next guy, but unless the founder is already crazy rich, you need external capital to start up any large decently company - or even a non-profit.
Right now I am hunting for a non-subscription note taking setup that will replace SimpleNote.
So I’ll move to the next option from BW, just like I moved to it from LP.
VCs ruin everything.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34434877
I’m not convinced Bitwarden will go down the drain quite so quickly…
If someone creates new tech and it fits with Bitwarden then I'm more than happy to see what they can do together.
OTOH I wouldn't want to self-host because I know I'm not going to spend the same amount of time and effort a full security staff would, even if my self-hosted box would make a much less attractive target.
It's quite a pickle.
Want to just encrypt everything on a node with no network access? Sure. That doesn't work for a "real" host but that is fine if you mostly use your phone and need to just occasionally sync your passwords back at home.
You don't need the things that make hosting hard. You can have a few hours of downtime. You password vault is gigabytes, not hundreds of terabytes. You don't need to arm guard your backups, just pass them (encrypted) to a friend with a safe.
I run it as a Docker instance on my home Synology NAS. This turned out to be pretty easy to do. The only part that was a slight hassle was buying a cert, creating an FQDN and making the DNS entries to get an SSL connection to the NAS. Also, I wish updating to a new version of Vaultwarden was a little more straightforward.
When I am at home, my devices with Bitwarden all sync to the Vautwarden instance on the NAS without issue.
My router is a Ubiquiti UDMPro. I have an L2TP VPN configured with a shared-secret and user passwords that are ridiculously long and complex. When I'm out and about and need to sync with the NAS from my laptop or mobile device, I activate the VPN and do the sync.
My Ubiquiti account does have 2FA.
I implemented all this when 1Password informed me that in order to continue using their service, my vault would have to be hosted on their server and I would have to pay them every month for the privilege. That was a nonstarter.
I'm sure my router and NAS are not impenetrable, but I don't feel like I'm low-hanging fruit either. And if someone went to the trouble of breaking in, their reward would be one guy's vault and not the vaults of millions of customers. I'm hoping that makes me a less attractive target. Of course the vault itself has a very long and complex password as well.
This is working out quite well for me so far, knock on wood.
My other concern, which may be unfounded is that Vaultwarden [1], which is an unofficial Rust rewrite, may also be developed to different, or lesser security standards than the official client. However I don't have any real reasons to suspect this.
Note that Synology DSM has built-in Let's Encrypt support
Yes... I tried going down that route. In my scenario, I'm accessing the NAS via its internal IP which is in an RFC1918 subnet. Let's Encrypt insists that you use a globally routable IP. If I used the public IP issed to me by my ISP, then I would have to map a port on my router and expose the NAS directly to the Internet. No way am I doing that.
I bought a cert through Namecheap and got 5 years for $29.95. That seemed quite reasonable to me. There was no problem getting it to work when I mapped the hostname to the NAS's internal IP. The only downside is that I have to go through a renewal process every year and install the updated cert on NAS. Not a huge deal; just one more thing I have to do.
Not necessarily. I wouldn't have felt compelled to redo all my passwords if 1Password's encrypted vaults were stolen the way LastPass's were, given that 1P's vaults are uncrackable with brute force but LastPass's critically depend on the entropy of the master password. This was discussed recently:
It is now growth at all costs until an eventual acquisition of Bitwarden. So I won't be surprised to see price increases on some plans soon.
[0] https://bitwarden.com/blog/accelerating-value-for-bitwarden-...
I do worry about VC pressure on Bitwarden for hypergrowth. However in my personal opinion, the benefits outweigh the cons (for now).
If you want to gate it, you can just periodically update the local git repo after you reviewed it (or just follow up to main minus a few days).
I did not notice anything, maybe the break happened during the night in Europe. Or the Android app did not want about problems.
Vaultwarden is much easier to set up and manage, I use it myself, and I heard that the official build is a little bit more tedious to go with.
The MSSQL database seems a bit heavyweight (RAM wise) given the tiny amount of data it needs to host for a handful of users, and isn't acceptable to some people on principle, since it isn't open source.
That experience sent me back to just letting Bitwarden host for me, I know it's all free and I can't expect anything which is fine, but I can't be without my passwords either.
Vaultwarden is a compatible but 3rd party software.
There are decent apps for android and iOS (eg Strongbox)
I’m going to migrate off 1Password to it soon
1Password 8 has greatly improved security architecture compared to the previous versions. Just one example of many: when rendering the item details, the Rust core would not send the password value to the UI layer until the user clicks "Copy" or "Reveal" password.
In addition to that, 1Password 8 has better integration with the operating system that any other version in the past — Touch ID, Windows Hello, Secure Enclave, macOS Accessibility services, etc, etc.
Some keepass compatible apps even offer full iOS integration (FaceTime unlock, Password AutoFill), so you don't lose these features you're used to with LastPass.
There are multiple users who, post-breach, are checking the Iteration Count the number of PBKDF2 iterations for their vault, and discovering that even though LastPass had been slowly increasing the number of iterations for new customers in line with industry best practices, they were never going back and upgrading the old users. So if you created a LastPass account in the past few years, your iteration count was 100,000. But if you were an older user, it may have only been 5,000. Or 500. Or, in the case of many old users: 1. One iteration. That's all that was protecting their encrypted vault--now in the hands of attackers--from brute forcing.
I can say with certainty that I’ve continued to get value out of 1Password both personally and professionally. I can even say with a degree of certainty that I’ve gotten value out of the changes that have come post-acquisition. Were I starting from scratch, I’d still probably pick 1Password. This isn’t me arguing that 1Password is better. More saying that it’s been a…little bit of time now, and I’m still happy with the product and how it’s improved.
I appreciate that acquisitions or taking on funding feels like more of a kick in the teeth because it’s a distinct event, is publicised, and even publicised as a good thing. Having just gone through my first acquisition (as an employee in an entirely bootstrapped small business) I’ve realised that this has to be weighed up against the risks associated with whatever was in the no-funding no-acquisition future, i.e. the thing just going away entirely, which happens slowly (and then all at once) and mostly in private.
I’ve little doubt that over time 1Password will get comparatively worse than whatever else is around. Either because it’s neglected or because it gets juiced and dark patterned by VC incentives. Ignoring the VC bit, I’m just as sure the same will still happen to Bitwarden obviously. But this shifting playing field just feels like an inevitability regardless of which path any product takes.
No autocomplete on username, slow initial load, search function is sticky on desktop client but not on the rest. No way to easily add folders or reorganise multiple items.
I won't renew my subscription, not that they care anymore
Granted this is Bitwarden acquiring rather than being acquired, but I still worry it leads to a trend of building "portfolio value" rather than focusing on the product. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.