Hacker News Reader

Comment by sschueller | Hacker News Reader

In an ideal situation all vaults should be stored locally and all that bitwarden does is sync them.

Probably the primary reason I dont use these services even the self hosted version and stick to KeePass for now.

That is the case with most of them. Sync just wouldn't have worked.

I believe that is the case. Or at least it can be set to work like that. There is also an E2E encrypted copy in the cloud.

I don't believe that is the case. Bitwarden works very unpredictably on a bad internet connection. The failed sync attempt can hang the whole application (or browser extension). I have this issue occasionally when Bitwarden shows that my vault is empty after a failed sync attempt. If sync will be not possible, then I don't have an offline copy of my passwords.

Also, your local copy (if it works) is read-only. You can't edit anything without an internet connection. So no, it's more like you have a read-only local copy, but it's an internet-first service - this is my main issue with Bitwarden and the reason I'm migrating back to KeePass.

I see no reason to move away from my synching/keepass setup, it's worked reliably for years and I expect it will continue to do so regardless of what happens with these services. It's nice they exist for less technical users but it's not for me.

I've said this before, but once you start sharing a synced Keepass vault with others you will start getting conflicts even with small teams.

If you updated KeePass data on two machines, in a non-conflicting way (e.g. added two different logins), is there a good way to merge these changes during synchronization?

I think you should still „synchronize with file“ beforehand.

I don't know about Keepass, but you can do that with KeepassXC, which has a "Database > Merge from database..." option. There is also the Keeshare [0] feature to share some/all entries between databases

[0]: https://keepassxc.org/docs/KeePassXC_UserGuide#_database_sha...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com