[jillesvangurp]

You are in control here. It's like every other bit of software you run yourself: it's your problem to do it properly.

1) if you worry about people replacing the docker image you are using, build your own. It's not hard. Alternatively, use a specific version of the docker image by specifying the version or the hash (if you are really paranoid). Of course after you review the Dockerfile. Minimum at least glance through the Dockerfile.

2) bitwarden has import/export functionality (client side) so if your server disappears for whatever reason, you can still export your passwords from the client side.

3) if you don't trust the OSS code, audit it or at least look through it. That's the whole point of OSS. Build it from source if you must. File bugs. Look at the issue tracker. You can choose not to but if something happens it's your problem; not somebody else's problem.

4) The vault is encrypted and the server never handles or sees the decrypted content (see 3 to verify this). Other people's ability to break that encryption depends on you using a secure master password.

5) Or just pay Bitwarden to host passwords for you and rely on their terms of use, SLAs, support, good reputation, and what not. That's probably the best option if you want ass coverage for professional usage. Their pricing is very reasonable for small setups. And probably sharing passwords with a large group of users is just a spectacularly bad idea to begin with. A couple of key users, should cost you max 20/month. Not really worth dedicating devops time for self hosting unless you have a really good reason to. If you do, see 1-4.

[ClumsyPilot]

"3) if you don't trust the OSS code, audit it or at least look through it. That's the whole point of OSS."

Thats an outright fantasy, every day I rely on like 50 pieces of software written in 20 different languages and frameworks. They are updated multiple times a month. How many man hours would it take? 1000 a week?

Proffesional developers couldn't find heartbleed for years, you really think anyone would notice a hidden backdoor in software like this withing a year?

[jillesvangurp]

The keyword in that sentence is trust. Either trust or check. Your choice.

Most people choose to trust certain software providers based on their reputation. But if you have serious doubts and you don't check, that would be your problem.

Whining about an open source project maybe being insecure basically means either check it or don't use it. Nobody is twisting your arm to risk your passwords on some wonky self hosted setup. Your problem if it blows up in your face. That's also what it spells out in a typical OSS license (that would be the section talking about limited liability). That's another thing people tend to not check that they probably should pay some attention to. Using the software means accepting that it's your responsibility.

If like most you are unable to make a sound judgment on this front; consider paying a service provider providing you a service. That would be Bitwarden in this case. They kindly provide a free version even. Easy choice IMHO.

Heart-bleed slipped through the cracks for a while and then certain software providers lived up to their reputation by providing fixes in a timely fashion. And certain others messed up by not doing that. I care more about how developers act when something like this happens than the fact that it happens.

OSS software providers are no different than other providers when it comes to trust. Except you have the option of looking at their code. Lots of people doing that builds trust. I tend to look at things like number of stars, commit frequency, and other things when deciding to use a random Github thing. When it comes to software that is safety critical, I prefer the scrutiny of an active community of developers. That just increases my level of trust.

IMHO Bitwarden's trustworthiness just went up by virtue of there being multiple implementations of the thing and apparently a growing community of users and developers depending on these things. I'm already using it and vastly prefer this over some closed source solution with opaque development processes. I probably would not self host but it is nice to have that option available.

[Graffur]

Who is whining? OP even said they love the project. They're just asking a question.

[ClumsyPilot]

I am not taking a stab at bitwarden or OSS, but this talking point about trust is total tripe.

It is a choice to obey the law of gravity? Because Its physically impossible for one person to check all security critical code they come in contact with even if they know every single programming language and have a Phd in cryptography. So stop with the accusatory language about 'whining' and pontification about choice.

[prophesi]

With the official Bitwarden repos, this is solved by having reputable teams periodically run security audits. Sadly, it's unlikely this Rust implementation will be audited any time soon.

[o-__-o]

Bitwarden server phones home every install. In order to remove the phoning home bit, you must recompile the entire codebase. I wonder if this rust alternative makes that easier to remove...

[hda111]

4) this not 100% true. To get someone’s passwords you just have to compromise their bitwarden_rs to include a malicious web client that sends the master password to the attacker if the user logs in. This is a different story of course when the web client is never used. Then it is impossible to get the passwords because it’s encrypted at client side.